`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc.,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00110
`Patent No. 8,624,550
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10431406
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
`
`USB Communication Protocol ............................................................... 1
`
`A. USB Architecture ......................................................................... 2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`USB Connections ......................................................................... 3
`
`Power Distribution ....................................................................... 3
`
`Enumeration To Establish Communication Between Host
`And Device ................................................................................... 3
`
`E.
`
`Single Ended 1 (“SE1”) Line State .............................................. 5
`
`III. The ’550 Patent Presents An Elegant Solution To A Complex
`Problem ................................................................................................... 8
`
`A. Need For Enumeration Limits Power Sources Suitable
`For Charging A USB Device ....................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`Parts Of The ’550 Patent Solution ............................................... 9
`
`IV. The Prior Art References Differ From The ’550 Inventions ................ 11
`
`A. Dougherty Overview .................................................................. 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Dougherty’s Docking Station .......................................... 11
`
`Dougherty’s Alleged Improvement Over Prior Art ......... 13
`
`Dougherty’s Docking Station Logic ................................ 15
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`First Stage Of Operational Mode:
`Enumeration Using Normal USB Protocol ........... 15
`
`Second Stage Of Operational Mode:
`Loading Device Driver Using Information
`Obtained During Handshaking .............................. 16
`
`10431406
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`Page
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`Third Stage Of Operational Mode: Docking
`Station Initiated Inquiry Of Laptop’s Power
`Sink Ability Via Power Supply Lines And
`Supply Of Power ................................................... 18
`
`Dead Battery Or No Battery Scenario:
`Communication Only Via Power Supply
`Line ........................................................................ 18
`
`B.
`
`Shiga Overview .......................................................................... 19
`
`V.
`
`Skill Level Of A POSA ........................................................................ 20
`
`VI. Ground 1: Claims 1-3 And 9-12, And 18 Are Not Anticipated
`By Dougherty ....................................................................................... 21
`
`A.
`
`Petitioners Fail To Present Competent Evidence That
`Dougherty Discloses An Adapter That Is Both
`“Configured To Supply Current On The VBUS Line
`Without Regard To At Least One USB Specification
`Imposed Limit” And “Without Enumeration” (Claim 12) ........ 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Enumeration Takes Place Before Power Supply By
`The Docking Station In The Charged Battery
`Scenario............................................................................ 21
`
`Petitioners Have Failed To Show That The
`Docking Station Supplies More Than 500 mA To
`The Laptop In The Dead Battery Scenario. ..................... 27
`
`B.
`
`Petitioners Fail To Present Competent Evidence That
`Dougherty Discloses “An Adapter Comprising . . . A
`USB Communication Path” ....................................................... 29
`
`VII. Ground 2: Claims 4-8 And 13-17 Are Not Obvious Over
`Dougherty In View Of Shiga ................................................................ 33
`
`A.
`
`The Proposed Combination Suffers From The Same
`Defect As The Analysis Presented In Ground 1 ........................ 33
`
`10431406
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Fails To Provide Any Competent Factual
`Basis For Its Assertion Of A Motivation To Combine
`Dougherty/Shiga ........................................................................ 34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioners Fail To Present Competent Evidence
`That A POSA Would Recognize SE1 As An
`Appropriate Signal When Normal USB
`Communication Is Involved ............................................ 39
`
`A POSA Would Conclude That The Proposed
`Combination Had No Reasonable Expectation of
`Success ............................................................................. 41
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`A POSA Would Believe That Dougherty’s
`Laptop Would Not Be Able To Send SE1
`Signaling Under Normal USB Protocol ................ 42
`
`A POSA Would Conclude That The
`Petition’s Proposed Combinations Are Still
`Inoperative If The Laptop Is Programed To
`Respond To An SE1 Signal ................................... 44
`
`Petitioners Fail to Provide A Reasoned
`Explanation As To Why A POSA Would Have
`Chosen SE1 Over Other Alternatives In The
`Dougherty System ............................................................ 47
`
`A POSA Would Believe That Making The
`Suggested Modifications Would Disable The
`Dougherty Docking Station’s Primary
`Functionality .................................................................... 50
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Dougherty’s Docking Station Expands Ports
`And Requires Normal USB Communication
`With The Laptop .................................................... 50
`
`Dougherty’s Handshaking Process Is
`Necessary To Establish Communication ............... 51
`
`10431406
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`Page
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`The Proposed Combinations Would Add
`Complexity Because A POSA Would Believe The
`Docking Station And The Laptop Must Use
`Different Signaling Schemes For The Operational
`State And The Off State ................................................... 53
`
`Shiga Is Not Analogous Art To The ’550 Patent ............ 56
`
`The Second Combination Has Additional
`Drawbacks ....................................................................... 59
`
`The Petition Fails To Provide A Reasoned
`Explanation Of Motivation For Its Proposed
`Combinations ................................................................... 61
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`The Combinations Would Not Reduce
`Dougherty’s System Latency Or Decrease
`Its Complexity ....................................................... 61
`
`Petitioners Offered No Evidence That SE1
`Signaling Is A Logical Choice .............................. 63
`
`Dougherty Discourages Modification Of
`USB Communication Protocol .............................. 65
`
`VIII. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 66
`
`
`
`
`10431406
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 34
`
`CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp.,
`504 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 30
`
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ...................................................................... 57
`
`Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................... 23
`
`Cook Group Inc. v. Boston Scimed, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00133 ....................................................................................... 55-56
`
`Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l. Corp.,
`323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 29
`
`In re Gleave,
`560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 22
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed.Cir.1984) ............................................................ 39, 53, 65
`
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 56, 57
`
`NetMoney In, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 ............................................................................................... 28
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...................................................................... 28
`
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................. 37, 41, 45, 63
`
`10431406.
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`Statutes
`
`Page
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 56
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ......................................................................................... 23, 63
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................. 33
`
`
`
`10431406
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001
`
`Ex. 2002
`Ex. 2003
`Ex. 2004
`Ex. 2005
`
`Ex. 2006
`Ex. 2007
`Ex. 2008
`Ex. 2009
`
`Ex. 2010
`
`Ex. 2011
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Declaration of Kenneth Fernald, Ph.D. in Support of
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC’s Patent
`Owner Preliminary Response
`-intentionally omitted-
`Jan Axelson, USB Complete (1999), excerpt
`U.S. Patent No. 5,884,086 (“Amoni”)
`Deposition Transcript of John Garney (Nov. 20, 2017) in
`Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int’l LLC v. Samsung Electronics
`Co. (E.D. Tex.), excerpt
`Jan Axelson, USB Complete (2d ed. 2001), excerpt
`Donald Spencer, Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1993), p. 169
`U.S. Patent No. 6,326,771
`Linear Technology Corp., A Miniature, Low Dropout Battery
`Charger for Lithium-Ion Batteries (2000)
`USB 2.0 Specification Engineering Change Notice (ECN) #1:
`Mini-B Connector (2000), excerpt
`John Hyde, USB Design by Example (1999), excerpt
`
`10431406.
`
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550, entitled “Multi-Functional Charging System
`
`and Method” (the “’550 Patent”), is directed to a novel USB adapter that use
`
`abnormal USB signals for the transfer of significant amounts of current to
`
`USB devices in excess of the current limits set by a USB specification and
`
`without the need for enumeration. Petitioner maintains that enumeration is “a
`
`host-initiated process that a USB device must undergo before it can
`
`communicate data over the USB interface.” Pet. 15. This Petition does not
`
`present a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail as to any
`
`challenged claim.
`
`II. USB Communication Protocol
`Universal Serial Bus (“USB) was co-developed by Compaq, Intel,
`
`Microsoft and NEC to address issues related to “connectivity for the PC
`
`architecture.” Ex. 1007-0001, 17. USB was designed to allow for plug-and-
`
`play and expandable bidirectional communication channels. Id. at -0017. To
`
`accommodate this goal, USB developed architecture, power distribution, and
`
`communication protocols, as explained in the subsections below.
`
`10431406.
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`A. USB Architecture
`USB employs a tiered-star topology as shown below that permits up to
`
`127 unique devices to be connected to a single host. Id. at -0032, -0029; Ex.
`
`1008-0041.
`
`
`
`In this architecture, a host, such as a PC, has an integrated “Root Hub”
`
`that provides one or more attachment points for a hub. Ex. 1008-0041. An
`
`example of a hub is shown below (Ex. 1008-0051, Ex 1007-0038). Either a
`
`USB device (a “Node” shown in the figure above) or another hub may be
`
`connected to a hub. Ex. 1008-0041.
`
`
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`B. USB Connections
`In the above architecture, a host and a device are connected to each other
`
`via a USB cable that includes at least conductors for four functions: VBUS and
`
`Ground (GND) power and D+ and D- communication. This is illustrated
`
`schematically on Ex. 1007-0033, Ex. 1008-0045.
`
`Power Distribution
`
`C.
`When a USB device is plugged into a USB host or hub, power can be
`
`provided by the host or the hub via the VBUS and GND functions. VBUS carries
`
`a nominal voltage of about 5V. Ex. 1007-0034, 0158; Ex. 1008-0206. At the
`
`time of the inventions, the USB specifications limited the amount of current
`
`that a device may draw to 500 milliamps (mA) after configuration and 100 mA
`
`before configuration. Ex. 1007-0158; Ex. 1008-0206. A USB host and
`
`connected device negotiate for power allocation so that sufficient power can be
`
`allocated to the devices without overdrawing power from the host. Ex. 1007-
`
`0195, Ex. 1008-0200-02, 0271-72.
`
`D. Enumeration To Establish Communication Between Host And
`Device
`
`As noted above, USB is designed to support interoperability and port
`
`expansion (that is, multiple devices can communicate with a host through a
`
`single port). In many circumstances, an attached device also draws power from
`
`its connected USB port for its operation. USB technology provides for the
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`above needs with a handshaking protocol called enumeration by which the
`
`host can identify, address and configure each peripheral device. Ex. 1007-
`
`0036, 0195; Ex. 1008-0048, 0200-02, 0271-72 (enumeration process).
`
`Petitioner maintains that enumeration is “a host-initiated process that a USB
`
`device must undergo before it can communicate data over the USB
`
`interface.” Pet. at 15; see also Ex. 2003-9 (“Enumeration is the initial
`
`exchange of information that enables the host’s device driver to communicate
`
`with the device.”).
`
`At the time of the inventions, when a USB device was plugged into a
`
`host, the device would pull one of the D+ or D- lines to a voltage above 2.0V.
`
`Ex. 1007-0129, 0158; Ex 1008-0169, 0206. With the rise of the voltage on
`
`either the D+ or D- lines (but not both), the host would become aware that a
`
`device had been plugged into a USB port. Ex. 1008-0177-79. To initiate the
`
`communication with the device, the host would first reset the device to its
`
`default state. Ex. 1008-0270-72; Ex. 1007-0195. The host would disable the
`
`port and prevent data from being sent downstream from the port to the device
`
`until this reset step was performed. Id.
`
`Until a unique address was assigned to the device, the device would use
`
`the default address 0 to respond to the host. Id. The host would read the
`
`device’s descriptor via a “Get_Descriptor” request to find out the maximum
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`packet size that the device would use. Id.; Ex. 2003-12; Ex. 2006-17. The host
`
`would assign a unique address after completing this query to the device. Ex.
`
`1007-0195; Ex. 1008-0271; Ex. 2003-12 & -13; Ex. 2006-17.
`
`The host would then query the device for as many details as it needed to
`
`configure the device, again via a “Get_Descriptor” request. Id. The host
`
`would then assign a configuration value to the device. Id. The device would
`
`then be considered “configured,” and could draw the amount of power
`
`allocated in the selected configuration. Id. Before then, the device could draw
`
`at most 100 mA of current. Ex. 1007-0158; Ex. 1008-0206. Until the device
`
`was configured, the device could only respond to standard requests, and thus
`
`none of the device-specific requests generally needed in order to operate a
`
`connected USB device available. Ex. 2003-6 & Ex. 2006-6 (application
`
`communication occurs after enumeration); Ex. 2001, ¶30. After the device was
`
`configured through the enumeration process, the device could send and receive
`
`operational data over the D+ and D- lines in accordance with the USB
`
`specification. Id.
`
`Single Ended 1 (“SE1”) Line State
`
`E.
`Petitioners suggest that the “SE1 condition would be a logical choice for
`
`signaling information about a device without interfering with USB signaling.”
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`Pet. 11.1 Samsung’s own expert in the district court litigation— James Garney,
`
`correctly acknowledged that an SE1 condition interferes with USB signaling
`
`because a USB port enters a “disconnect state” upon observing SE1. Ex. 2005,
`
`261:6-22 (“. . . no more data signaling would be delivered across that
`
`communication—across that connection between the hub and the attached
`
`device or hub that might be connected to it.”).
`
`Mr. Garney’s understanding is further confirmed by Petitioners’ prior art
`
`references none of which actually discloses transmitting an SE1 signal on USB
`
`data lines that were transmitting or would continue to transmit standard USB
`
`communications. For example, in Shiga, SE1 is sent as a wake up signal to a
`
`wake-up means and not to the USB lines on the host computer. Ex. 1006, 3:1-
`
`9, 6:8-12, 7:16-30 (the signal lines of the USB keyboard that sends SE1 are
`
`“not connected” to the signal lines of the host when SE1 is sent). Similarly,
`
`Kerai teaches that an SE1 state would only occur when the USB connection is
`
`“inactive.” Ex. 1012, 5:43-48. Likewise, Cypress expressly states that an SE1
`
`signal is only sent when USB is “disabled.” Ex. 1011 at 24. Casebolt’s SE1
`
`
`1 In systems described in the ’550 patent, the devices and adapters
`recognize each other using an algorithm separate from USB enumeration and
`therefore do not suffer from the problems encountered by Petitioners’ attempt
`to shoehorn SE1 into the Dougherty system. In the ’550 patent system, signals
`that interfere with enumeration are viable implementations, and embodiments
`of the patent take this step.
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`signal likewise “causes USB functions to be terminated.” Ex. 1010, 7:40-46.
`
`In each example, SE1 is used in a context where normal USB communication
`
`is either not possible (Shiga and Kerai), disabled (Cypress), or to be disabled
`
`(Casebolt). Further, none of the examples uses SE1 to turn off power supply to
`
`a connected USB device as suggested by Petitioners. Ex. 1006, Ex. 1010-
`
`1012; Ex. 2001, ¶¶37-42.
`
`The Petition also suggests that Kerai’s SE1 triggers USB charging. Pet.
`
`13. But Kerai merely monitors data lines to harvest power whenever a data
`
`line has a positive voltage. Specially, Kerai teaches that in the embodiment
`
`associated with Figure 3:
`
`[E]ach logic detector 50 detects the state of a corresponding line
`25, 26 and, where the state is found to be high, permits current to
`flow into a corresponding capacitor 51. The output from each
`capacitor 50 supplies the charging terminal 52 which is connected
`to the battery charging circuit 19. Ex. 1012, 5:47-53.
`
`In other words, Kerai’s battery receives power whenever either D+ or D-
`
`(line 25 or 26) is held high. Id.; Ex. 2001, ¶39. Charging does not require an
`
`SE1 condition where D+ and D- are held high simultaneously. Id. Rather,
`
`charging occurs even when the D+ and D- lines act as a differential data pair
`
`with one line being held high and the other held low. Ex. 1012, 3:30-33
`
`(conductors 25 and 26 “carry differential data signals D- and D+ . . . .”); Ex.
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`2001, ¶39. Moreover, Kerai warns that drawing power whenever the data line
`
`has a positive voltage could “hav[e] a detrimental effect on the data rate of the
`
`[USB] port.” Ex. 1012 at 5:56-59; ; Ex. 2001, ¶39 n.1.
`
`III. The ’550 Patent Presents An Elegant Solution To A Complex
`Problem
`
`The ’550 patent stems from pioneering research performed by the power
`
`supply and distribution group at Research in Motion Ltd. (“RIM,” now
`
`Blackberry Ltd.), as part of RIM’s effort to build the world’s first mobile
`
`device with a combined USB data and charging port. The sections below will
`
`first describe problems faced by the RIM researchers and then the elegant
`
`solutions they offered.
`
`A. Need For Enumeration Limits Power Sources Suitable For
`Charging A USB Device
`
`In the early 2000s, Blackberry launched a project to design a mobile
`
`device with a combined power and data interface. A combined charging and
`
`data interface would reduce the number of external connections and simplify
`
`printed circuit board designs for a smaller and thinner phone.
`
`The inventors noted, “[a]lthough the USB interface can be used as a
`
`power interface, the USB is typically not used for that purpose by mobile
`
`devices.” Ex. 1001, 2:1-3. This was because the USB specification requires
`
`that “a USB device participate in a host-initiated process called enumeration in
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`order to be compliant with the current USB specification in drawing power
`
`from the USB interface.” Id., 2:3-15. But common power sources such as AC
`
`outlets and DC car sockets, having no required software or hardware, simply
`
`could not participate in such enumeration processes. Id. Moreover, under the
`
`USB specification, a device would go into a Suspended state and draw
`
`negligible amount of current after observing no bus activity for three
`
`milliseconds, such as when a USB device was connected to an AC outlet or a
`
`car socket. Id., 10:11-15; Ex. 1008-00182, 0206, 271.
`
`Parts Of The ’550 Patent Solution
`
`B.
`Faced with this challenge, the inventors designed a new “USB power
`
`adapter that [could] provide power to a USB device without necessarily
`
`requiring that the USB device participate in enumeration . . . .” and “a method
`
`that [could] allow a USB device to differentiate between the provided USB
`
`power adapter and traditional USB power sources such as hosts and hubs.” Ex.
`
`1004-0006, 3:9-14.
`
`In certain embodiments, to achieve the above results, the inventors
`
`incorporated an identification subsystem into the adapter to output an
`
`identification signal. An “identification signal could be the communication of
`
`a single voltage on one or more of the USB data lines, different voltages on the
`
`two data lines, a series of pulses or voltage level changes, or other types of
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`electrical signals.” Ex. 1001,8:29-33.
`
`The identification signal serves to inform a mobile device, for example,
`
`that it is coupled to a USB adapter of the inventions, that the connected power
`
`source “is not a USB limited source,” and/or that the device “can now draw
`
`power without regard to the USB specification and the USB specification
`
`imposed limits.” Id., 8:21-29. One example of such disregard of the USB
`
`specification imposed limits is allowing the device to draw more than 100 mA
`
`of current (e.g., 500 mA) from a non-USB power source (such as an AC outlet
`
`or a DC car socket) without enumeration. E.g., id.. at 9:65-10:3.
`
`The patent also teaches that an identification signal may be observed “by
`
`detecting the presence of an abnormal data line condition at the USB port,” and
`
`that one preferred identification signal “results from the application of voltage
`
`signals greater than 2 volts to both the D+ and D- lines in [a] USB connector.”
`
`Id. at 9:20-28. Certain dependent claims of the ’550 patent claim these specific
`
`examples. E.g., claims 4, 6-8, 13, 15-17.
`
`Annotated Figure 2 below illustrates a USB communication path
`
`(colored green) in the adapter that allows for the identification subsystem (108)
`
`to pass identification signals, such as abnormal data conditions or signals, to
`
`the USB connector 102 on the adapter side.
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`
`IV. The Prior Art References Differ From The ’550 Inventions
`As part of the analysis presented below, Fundamental has consulted with
`
`Dr. Kenneth Fernald. Dr. Fernald has spent decades actually designing the
`
`power management infrastructure that employs the USB specification.
`
`A. Dougherty Overview
`1.
`Dougherty’s Docking Station
`Dougherty’s docking station is used to “expand the capabilities of a
`
`laptop computer to include a full size keyboard, a full size monitor, more serial
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`ports, and other functionality typically associated only with desktop computing
`
`devices.” Ex. 1005, 1:61-67. One way to achieve this expansion is via “port
`
`replication across a USB port.” Id., 2:24-25. Port expansion means “by
`
`plugging the laptop into [a] docking station, more serial . . . ports are available
`
`for connection to printers, scanners, full size display devices, . . . pointing
`
`devices and the like.” Id., 2:16-20. Hence, docking a laptop in a docking
`
`station via a USB connection generates “plurality of communication ports” for
`
`access to printers, scanners, displays, mice and other peripheral devices. Id.,
`
`2:25-28.
`
`USB-based docking stations allegedly had the drawback of “requir[ing]
`
`the user to separately apply power to the laptop” with a power adapter such as
`
`an AC/DC power converter connected to the laptop. Id., 2:43-45. Dougherty’s
`
`docking station allegedly overcame this shortcoming and presented “a USB
`
`based docking station that has the capability of both operating the laptop
`
`computer and charging the battery in the laptop computer while docked
`
`without the need to plug in a separate power connection . . . .” Id., 2:45-50.
`
`Dougherty teaches that the primary reason for docking a laptop is to
`
`allow it to access the full functionality available to a desktop computer. E.g.,
`
`id., 1:61-67 (“Docking . . . may expand the capabilities of the laptop computer
`
`to include . . . functionality typically associated only with desktop computing
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`devices.”), 2:9-17 (using port replication to make more ports “available for
`
`connection to printers, scanners, full size display devices . . . and the like”).
`
`Dougherty also acknowledges that to support USB-based port expansion,
`
`the laptop and docking station must be able to communicate with each other
`
`via USB protocols in order to operate peripheral USB devices connected to the
`
`USB based docking station. Id., 2:23-32 (“[a] user connects a laptop, via a
`
`USB connection, to a port replication device which generates plurality of
`
`communication ports,” and “port replication is accomplished across the USB
`
`connector”), 2:38-39 (“USB expansion connection”); Ex. 2001, ¶48. For this
`
`reason, Dougherty’s “laptop computer 100 of the preferred embodiment does
`
`not modify operation of the serial communication conductors 126 of the USB
`
`protocol.” Id. at 4:67-5:3. Petitioners state that Dougherty’s serial
`
`communication conductors 126 correspond to “D+ and D- lines of a standard
`
`USB cable.” Pet. 26.
`
`Dougherty’s Alleged Improvement Over Prior Art
`
`2.
`As noted above, Dougherty allegedly improves prior art USB-based
`
`docking stations by allowing the docking station to provide power to the laptop
`
`using the USB connection, rather than a separate power adapter, while at the
`
`same time maintaining the ability to communicate over USB that is the purpose
`
`of the USB docking station. Ex. 1005, 2:45-50 (“it would be desirable to have
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`a USB based docking station that has the capability of both operating the
`
`laptop computer and charging the batteries in the laptop computer while
`
`docked without the need to plug in a separate power connection”); see also,
`
`e.g., 2:55-58 (“The problems noted above are solved in large part by a laptop
`
`computer and related docking station adapted to supply power from the
`
`docking station to the laptop computer across the USB connection.”).
`
`Dougherty’s docking station is designed to supply power at up to 18V
`
`and 2.5A when the laptop is in full operation over the VBUS and GND power
`
`lines. Id. at 7:20-55. Dougherty teaches the use of the VBUS and GND lines to
`
`send the communications necessary “to establish whether laptop computer [] is
`
`capable of receiving power from the docking station.” Ex. 1005, 5:3-7. This
`
`communication takes place after a handshaking (or enumeration) process under
`
`“normal USB protocols.” Id., 5:39-6:17. Dougherty teaches that the USB
`
`communication lines maintain their standard operation:
`
`Referring to FIG. 1, the laptop computer 100 of the preferred
`embodiment does not modify operation of the serial
`communication conductors 126 of the USB protocol.
`
`Ex. 1005, 4:67-5-7; see also id. at 6:13-18 & Fig. 1 (explaining that docking
`
`logic 134 is coupled to the power lines 138, not the communication lines 126).
`
`
`
`There is no disclosure or discussion of using the USB communication
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`lines (D+ and D-) to send abnormal USB data signals for purposes of
`
`identifying power source or drawing current without regard to limitations
`
`imposed by the USB Specification. This is not an accident. Those lines need
`
`to be used for USB communication.
`
`Dougherty’s Docking Station Logic
`
`3.
`Dougherty applies docking station logic in two separate scenarios: 1)
`
`where the laptop is already operational before connection to the docking
`
`station, and 2) where the laptop is nonoperational upon connection to the
`
`docking station.
`
`a)
`
`First Stage Of Operational Mode: Enumeration
`Using Normal USB Protocol
`
`In the “operational” scenario, Dougherty teaches a multi-step process
`
`when the docking station is connected to the laptop via a USB cable. The first
`
`step is to engage in a “normal USB protocol,” which “requires a series of USB
`
`handshaking protocols to identify both the . . . laptop computer 100, and . . . the
`
`docking station 200.” Ex. 1005, 5:38-43. The handshaking protocol to
`
`“identify” the host and the docking station is enumeration as described in the
`
`USB specification, which is a process used by the host to “to identify and
`
`manage the device state changes necessary.” Ex. 1008-0271; Ex. 2001, ¶49.
`
`To suggest that Dougherty is not performing enumeration via this step would
`
`mean that its USB-docking expander is unable to perform its primary role as a
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`USB hub expander, because enumeration is the basic threshold element to
`
`allow a hub to communicate with additional USB devices. Ex. 1008-0271
`
`(“Before a USB device’s function may be used, the device must be
`
`configured”); -0271-72 (configuration is the last step of enumeration); Ex.
`
`20xx at 74 (device only start data transfer after configuration); Ex. 2003-6 &
`
`Ex. 2006-6 (application communications occur after enumeration); Ex. 2001,
`
`¶¶62-63. A detailed description of the steps involved in an enumeration
`
`process, per the USB 2.0 specification, is described in Section II.D above.
`
`b)
`
`Second Stage Of Operational Mode: Loading
`Device Driver Using Information Obtained
`During Handshaking
`
`The second step of the Dougherty’s docking station logic is for the
`
`laptop to load a driver that contains a command that the laptop shut off its VBUS
`
`supply voltage to the docking station. Ex. 1005, 5:53-58. Loading of a driver
`
`associated with an identified peripheral device is dependent on the information
`
`obtained during the enumeration process of step 1. See Ex. 2005, 37:1-38:6
`
`(“subsequent to getting the configuration descriptor [in the enumeration
`
`process], the hub driver would be involved with determining what device
`
`driver would be required to control the device and . . . loading a device driver
`
`to enable the correct device driver to be present”); Ex. 1008-0273 (Class,
`
`SubClass, and Protocol fields from the device descriptor that is read during
`
`10431406
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`enumeration are used to support “adaptive device drivers”); -0290-91 (Class,
`
`SubClass, and Protocol fields are part of a standard device descriptor); -0270
`
`(explaining that the device descriptor is read during enumeration)..
`
`Enumeration is such an essential condition of driver loading that
`
`handbooks actually describe driver loading as part of the enumeration proce
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
