ZTE (USA) Inc.
`v.
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC
`
`IPR2018-00111
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,624,550
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Paper 1 (Petition); 16 (Institution Decision); 33 (POR); 42 (Reply); 54 (Sur-reply)
`Paper 48 (ZTE Motion to Add RPI); 50 (Opposition to Paper 48); 51 (ZTE Reply ISO Paper 48)
`
`DX 1.1
`
`
`v.
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC
`
`IPR2018-00111
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,624,550
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Paper 1 (Petition); 16 (Institution Decision); 33 (POR); 42 (Reply); 54 (Sur-reply)
`Paper 48 (ZTE Motion to Add RPI); 50 (Opposition to Paper 48); 51 (ZTE Reply ISO Paper 48)
`
`DX 1.1
`
`
`
`Grounds of Institution
`Click to edit Master title style
`
`Claims at Issue
`
`References
`
`Statutory Ground
`
`Claims 1-3, 9-12 and 18 Rogers
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claims 4-8 and 13-17
`
`Rogers + Shiga
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Paper 16 (Institution Decision) at 6, 18
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.2
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Institution Decision
`
`•
`
`• Petitioner “has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that
`the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Rogers”
`“Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that
`the subject matter of claims 2, 3 and 9 would have been obvious over
`Rogers.”
`“Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that
`the subject matter of claims 11, 12 and 18 would have been obvious over
`Rogers.”
`“Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that
`the subject matter of claims 4-8 and 13-17 would have been obvious over
`the combined disclosures of Rogers and Shiga.”
`“Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that the
`subject matter of claim 10 would have been obvious over Rogers.”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 16
`
`DX 1.3
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Events Since Institution
`
`• Findings of PTAB in related proceedings
`
`• Admissions of Petitioner’s expert Mr. Geier
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.4
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Board Findings Regarding Rogers
`
`“Rogers discloses increasing voltage, not current, and indicates a
`preference for keeping the applied current as low as possible. [Rogers],
`10:29–33 (“The voltage is high so that the current required is as low as
`possible, for a given power level.”), 11:15–18 (disclosing a “dual-voltage
`accessory power system” that may “supply power at 48 VDC, instead of
`5 VDC”), 11:51–55 (drawing 48 VDC from station input power 86, as
`shown in Figure 6 of Rogers). Amoni discloses providing “auxiliary”
`voltage and current to an attached peripheral device, but does so using
`“a modified (enhanced) USB cable having an extra conductor to supply
`the extra voltage” and current. [Amoni], 2:36–39, 3:66–4:4, Fig. 8,
`Abstract. In other words, Rogers declines to violate the 500 mA current
`limit of USB 2.0 and Amoni relies on something other than a standard,
`four-pin USB connector to provide additional power.”
`
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, IPR2018-00465, Paper 11 at 13-14 (PTAB,
`Aug. 20, 2018) ("Huawei-465") (same panel as the current proceeding, authored by APJ Tornquist) (cited on sur-reply 19)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.5
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Board Findings Regarding Rogers
`
`“Rogers discloses increasing voltage, and not current, and indicates a
`desire to keep current as low as possible for a particular power level.
`[Rogers], 10:29–33 ("The voltage is high so that the current required is as
`low as possible, for a given power level."), 11:15–18 (disclosing a "dual-
`voltage accessory power system" that may "supply power at 48 VDC,
`instead of 5 VDC"), 11:51–55 (drawing 48 VDC from station input power
`86, as shown in Figure 6 of Rogers). Amoni discloses increasing both
`voltage and current, but does so using an "auxiliary (or non-standard)"
`USB cable having additional conductors to carry the additional power to
`the device. [Amoni], 2:36–39, 3:66–4:4, Fig. 8, Abstract. Thus, Rogers
`avoids violating the 500 mA current limit set forth in USB 2.0 and Amoni
`relies on a modified USB connector to provide increased power. [¶]
`Petitioner does not explain adequately why the disclosures of Rogers and
`Amoni, either alone or in combination with those of Shiga, . . . Casebolt,
`and Cypress, would teach or suggests providing greater than 500 mA of
`current over a standard USB 2.0 connector.
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, IPR2018-00485, Paper 8 at 13
`(PTAB, Sept. 4, 2018) ("Huawei-485") (authored by APJ Tornquist) (cited on sur-reply 18-19)
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.6
`
`
`
`Petitioner Expert: Rogers’ Operator Console Can Be
`Click to edit Master title style
`Operated with <500mA Current
`Q: You would agree with Dr. Fernald's conclusion that there
`is no requirement that 500 milliamp -- greater than 500
`milliamperes be supplied by the base station for the
`operator console to function in Rogers, correct?
`A: I just want to make sure I really know your question
`you're asking. So what I think you're asking is there is no
`requirement to have more than 500 milliamps for only
`supplying power to the operator console that's indicated in
`Rogers or that Rogers defines?
`Q: Correct.
`A: Yes, based on the understanding of what Rogers
`includes, which could be 100 LEDs, then it could get by
`with less than 500 milliamps, you know, similar to the
`analysis that the patent owner provided in their response
`for just the operator console.
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.7
`
`Ex. 2013, 185:8-24 (cited on POR 2)
`
`
`
`Petitioner Expert: Rogers Query and Response Can
`Click to edit Master title style
`Occur As Part of Enumeration
`• Rogers' 48VDC capability is exchanged in a
`query-and-response step. Ex. 1005, 11:44-56.
`
`• Query-and-response can occur during or after
`USB enumeration. Geier, 143:22-144:21,
`188:16-22, 132:19-133:1.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR at 2
`
`DX 1.8
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`USB Enumeration Involves Query-and-Response
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: Now, you agree that there are
`aspects of USB enumeration that can
`be described as a query and
`response, correct?
`A: Well, certainly, you know, in bus
`enumeration, and I'm looking at this
`again, you know, this is some
`querying and some responding. But
`that's certainly provided there.
`
`Ex. 2013, 188:16-22 (cited on POR 2)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.9
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`USB Enumeration Involves Query-and-Response
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: So the question is: Does the
`protocol for USB enumeration
`involve a query and response, yes
`or no?
`A: I don't know how else to
`answer that except that it may
`include elements that are
`considered in general a query and
`response.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.10
`
`Ex. 2013, 132:19-133P:1 (cited on POR 2)
`
`
`
`Petitioner Expert: Rogers’ High Power Devices
`Click to edit Master title style
`Require USB Data Communication
`• Rogers' operator console functions that use
`the 48VDC high power mode require USB data
`communication between Rogers’ operator
`console and the base unit. Geier, 197:23-
`200:21.
`
`• USB data communication requires USB
`enumeration. Id., 233:24-234:4, 53:7-55:13,
`123:8-22.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR at 2
`
`DX 1.11
`
`
`
`Rogers Examples of High-Power Mode
`Click to edit Master title style
`Is Post-USB Communication
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`[discussing Rogers passage starting from 12:46]
`
`Q: The in use information that’s described in this
`paragraph requires the transfer of data from the
`base station to the operator console, correct?
`A: Yes, certainly it’s dealing with the telephone and
`the communications with the telephone, right, the
`base station is what Rogers refers to.
`Q: The answer to my question is yes, correct?
`A: That’s fair, it would require data communications.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.12
`
`Ex. 2013, 197:23-200:21 (cited on POR 33)
`
`
`
`Rogers Examples of High-Power Mode
`Click to edit Master title style
`Is Post-USB Communication
`[discussing Rogers passage starting from 12:46]
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: The call transfer information that’s referred to in
`this paragraph would also require data
`communications between the base station and the
`operator console, correct?
`A: Certainly to make that work you’d have data
`communications across that particular interface,
`yes.
`Q: And the call relay information that’s described in
`this and subsequent paragraphs of column 12
`would also require communication between the
`base station and the operator console, correct?
`A: Yes, there would be data communications taking
`place between these two, right.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Ex. 2013, 197:23-200:21 (cited on POR 33)
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.13
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`USB Data Communication Requires Configuration
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: Sir, you agree that in the USB
`specification, a USB device must
`be configured, the last step in the
`enumeration process, before its
`functions may be accessed, yes or
`no, in the USB specification?
`A: Yes, I would agree with that. In
`fact, we even read that this
`morning.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.14
`
`Ex. 2013, 233:24-234:4 (cited on POR 2)
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Topics
`
`• Real party in interest
`• State of the art
`• Rogers
`• Shiga
`• Claim construction
`• A POSA would not exceed USB current limits
`• A POSA would not forgo USB enumeration
`• A POSA would not incorporate SE1 in Rogers
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.15
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`AIT v. RPX
`
`“[T]he focus of the real-party-in-
`interest inquiry is on the
`patentability of the claims
`challenged in the IPR petition,
`bearing in mind who will benefit
`from having those claims
`canceled or invalidated.”
`
`Application in Internet Time, LLV v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.16
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`AIT v. RPX
`
`“Determining whether a non-party is a
`‘real party in interest’ demands a flexible
`approach that takes into account both
`equitable and practical considerations,
`with an eye toward determining whether
`the non-party is a clear beneficiary that
`has a preexisting, established
`relationship with the petitioner.”
`
`Application in Internet Time, LLV v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.17
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Summary
`
`• Undisputed
`– Petitioner has failed to name ZTE (TX), Inc. (“ZTX”)
`as a real party-in-interest (“RPI”)
`– 315(b) bar date had long passed when Petitioner
`attempted to add ZTX as an RPI
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.18
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Evidence re ZTX’s Beneficiary Status
`
`• co-defendant in district court action
`• asserted invalidity as a defense
`• “design[s] telecommunication devices” such
`as accused handsets
`• “conducts research and development
`activities and provides technical marketing
`support for ZTE Corporation”
`
`POR at 18; Paper 50 at 7-9; Ex. 2015; Ex. 2017; Exs. 2029-2031
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.19
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Evidence re ZTX’s Relationship with Petitioner
`• Blurred corporate identity
`– Both ZTX and Petitioner are wholly owned
`subsidiary of ZTE Corporation (named RPI)
`– All three “identif[y] with the trade name ‘ZTE’”
`– ZTX web site redirected to Petitioner or ZTE
`Corporation site
`• Petitioner named ZTX in at least 7 IPR actions
`before AIT (control-fund-direct test)
`• Never disputed that ZTX could not have
`exercised control
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`POR at 18; Paper 50 at 7-9; Ex. 2014-2016; Exs. 2029-2032
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.20
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Topics
`
`• Real party in interest
`• State of the art
`• Rogers
`• Shiga
`• Claim construction
`• A POSA would not exceed USB current limits
`• A POSA would not forgo USB enumeration
`• A POSA would not incorporate SE1 in Rogers
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.21
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`State of the Art
`
`USB Specification
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.22
`
`
`
`State of the Art in 2001/2002 –
`Click to edit Master title style
`USB Specification
`• USB Specification’s “goal is to enable [USB]
`devices from different vendors to interoperate
`in an open architecture”
`
`Ex. 1008-0029 (cited in Sur-reply at 21)
`
`• “Standard USB interface” in terms of
`– “comprehension of the USB protocol”
`– “response to standard USB operations”
`– “standard capability descriptive information”
`
`Ex. 1008-0045 (cited in POR 3-4)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.23
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`State of the Art
`
`USB Specification Current and Voltage Limits
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.24
`
`
`
`In USB Supply Voltage and Current Limits Are
`Click to edit Master title style
`Separate and Independent
`
`USB 2.0 Specification
`(Ex. 1008)
`
`Ex. 1008-0206 & Ex. 2011, ¶¶ 48-50, 58-59 (cited in POR 13, 15-16, 21; Sur-reply 5-6);
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.25
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`USB Supply Voltage and USB Current Limits Are Distinct
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: In the specification, the limitations on the supply of
`current and the limitations on the supply of voltage are
`treated as distinct, fair?
`A: Yes, in this table here they are shown separately, right.
`. . .
`Q: The USB specification treats limits on current supply
`and limit on voltage supply as distinct?
`A: I don’t know if I’d say in exactly those words, that is
`shows them distinctly or treats them distinctly. They’re
`indicating them distinctly.
`I think of treating as being some action associated with it.
`It’s just an indication of what the maximum and minimum
`would be.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.26
`
`Ex. 2013, 213:14-18, 214:2-11 (cited on POR 13)
`
`
`
`In USB Supply Voltage and Current Limits Are
`Click to edit Master title style
`Separate and Independent
`
`Dr. Kenneth Fernald
`USB/Power Circuit
`designer with over 30
`years of experience
`
`“In the USB specification, current and voltage are
`independent variables and the voltage levels do not
`influence the limits set in the specification for current,
`and current levels do not influence the limits set in the
`specification for voltage. For example, in a system,
`there may be 2.5 watts of available power and a supply
`voltage at the minimal allowable value of 4.4V (see Ex.
`1008-0206). The current drawn by the USB device and
`supplied by a USB host, however, would not be 568 mA
`(2.5W divided by 4.4V), but 500mA due to the limit
`imposed by the USB specification. Thus, supply voltage
`and supply current are independent.”
`
`Ex. 2011, ¶49 (cited in POR 13, 15-16 & n.5, 21; Sur-reply 5-6, 8-9)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.27
`
`
`
`Only “Power” Limit In USB Specification
`Click to edit Master title style
`Is Current Limit
`• bMaxPower in response to configuration
`descriptor inquiry provides power
`requirements in units of current
`
`USB 2.0 Specification
`(Ex. 1008)
`
`Ex. 1008-0294; Ex. 2011, ¶¶ 30, 55 (cited in POR 3, 15, 17; Sur-reply 5, 14 n1)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.28
`
`
`
`The USB Specification Has No “Power” Limits
`Click to edit Master title style
`Separate From Current Limit
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: Does the USB specification actually
`list a power limit?
`A: I don’t remember it specifically lists a
`power limit. I know it indicates the
`highest – the maximum voltage and the
`maximum current.
`Q: It doesn’t – the USB specification
`doesn’t specify a power limit, correct?
`A: I don’t remember specifically, no.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.29
`
`Ex. 2013, 211:22-212:4 (cited on POR 14)
`
`
`
`USB Cables Generally Not Suitable
`Click to edit Master title style
`To Carry More than 500 mA
`
`“In the 2000-2002 time frame,
`most USB cables used to connect
`the base unit with the accessories
`had wire gauges designed to carry
`a current of about 500mA.
`(Higher voltage would not be a
`problem for the wires.)”
`
`Mr. Steven Rogers
`Inventor of Rogers
`
`Ex. 2012, ¶ 9 (cited on POR 9, 25, 30; Sur-reply 3, 11, 14, 19)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.30
`
`
`
`Standard USB Cables Cannot Accommodate More
`Click to edit Master title style
`Than 500 mA at 48 VDC
`“[T]o facilitate Rogers’ objective of ‘future
`expansion’ of accessories and therefore
`interoperability with unknown USB devices,
`a POSA would have had a reason to follow,
`rather than deviate from, the USB
`specification’s current limits. This is because
`the accessories may be supplied with cables
`having 28 AWG wires that might not
`accommodate more than 500mA of current
`at 48VDC.”
`
`Dr. Kenneth Fernald
`USB/Power Circuit
`designer with over 30
`years of experience
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.31
`
`Ex. 2011, ¶ 46 (cited in POR 12, 30; Sur-reply 3, 11, 12, 14)
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`State of the Art
`
`USB Enumeration
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.32
`
`
`
`Petitioner Affirms That Enumeration Is Necessary To
`Click to edit Master title style
`Communicate Data Over USB
`
`• “Consistent with the ‘550 patent’s description at
`column 2, lines 3-7, the USB 2.0 specification
`describes bus enumeration as a host-initiated
`process that a USB device must undergo before it
`can communicate data over the USB interface.”
`• “A USB device must be configured before its
`function(s) may be used.”
`• Configuration is the last step of USB enumeration
`
`Ex. 1008-0272, section 9.2.3 (cited in POR 5, 35)
`
`Pet. 15
`
`Ex. 1008-0271 to -272 (cited in POR 5, 54)
`
`See POR 3-5 “Device-Specific Communication Requires Enumeration”
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.33
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`
`
`POSAs Strongly Resisted Foregoing Enumeration
`Click to edit Master title style
`
`Dr. Kenneth Fernald
`USB/Power Circuit
`designer with over 30
`years of experience
`
`“When the USB 2.0 specification was released in April 2000, it
`was the culmination of years of work by essentially every major
`player in the industry at the time. Its listed authors were
`Compaq, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Lucent, Microsoft, NEC and
`Philips. Given the extraordinary market dominance of its
`authors, it would have been highly controversial and unlikely
`for a person of ordinary skill to create a device like a base unit
`that was designed to communicate with other USB devices that
`alter or disregard the communication protocols set out in the
`USB specification. Making such an alteration would risk making
`a device incompatible with devices of the vast majority of the
`industry. In particular, the decision to forego enumeration,
`which is the central tool that allows for communication, would
`have been considered completely unacceptable.”
`
`Ex. 2011, ¶ 46 (cited in POR 12; Sur-reply 3, 15, 19, 21)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.34
`
`
`
`USB Enumeration Allows Encoding of
`Click to edit Master title style
`Non-standard USB Voltages
`
`– Device class, in response to “Get_Descriptor”
`inquiry
`– iProduct index of string descriptor describing
`product, in response to “Get_Descriptor”
`inquiry
`– iConfiguration index of string descriptor
`describing the configuration, in response to
`requests for configuration descriptors
`
`Dr. Kenneth Fernald
`USB/Power Circuit
`designer with over 30
`years of experience
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2011, ¶¶ 28-31 & Ex. 1008-0291 to -0293 (cited in POR 4-5, 37-38, 53-54; Sur-reply 20)
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.35
`
`
`
`USB Specification Does Not Restrict Content of USB
`Click to edit Master title style
`Enumeration’s Device Class Field and Text Strings
`
`– “assignment of class, subclass, and protocol codes
`must be coordinated but is beyond the scope of
`this specification” (Ex. 1008-0273, cited in Ex. 2011, ¶ 29)
`– “the USB specification does not limit the content
`of the string descriptor associated with iProduct”
`(Ex. 2011, ¶ 29)
`– “the USB specification does not limit the content
`of the text string descriptor associated with
`iConfiguration” (Ex. 2011, ¶ 30)
`
`Dr. Kenneth Fernald
`USB/Power Circuit
`designer with over 30
`years of experience
`
`Ex. 2011, ¶¶ 28-31 & Ex. 1008-0273, 0291 to -0293 (cited in POR 4-5, 37-38, 53-54)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.36
`
`
`
`POSA’s Used USB Enumeration
`Click to edit Master title style
`To Provide Non-Standard Voltages
`
`Ex. 2004 (Amoni)
`
`Ex. 2004, 6:33-44 (cited on POR 4, 37-38, 54)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.37
`
`
`
`POSA’s Used USB Enumeration
`Click to edit Master title style
`To Provide Non-Standard Voltages
`
`Ex. 2004 (Amoni)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Ex. 2004, 7:19-44 (cited on POR 4, 38, 53)
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.38
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`State of the Art
`
`SE1
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.39
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`POSAs Were Taught To Avoid SE1
`
`“Low-speed and full-speed USB
`drivers must never ‘intentionally’
`generate an SE1 on the bus. SE1 is
`a state in which both the D+ and D-
`lines are at a voltage above VOSE1
`(min), which is 0.8V.”
`
`Ex. 1008-0151 (cited on POR 5)
`
`USB 2.0 Specification
`(Ex. 1008)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.40
`
`
`
`POSAs Were Taught That
`Click to edit Master title style
`SE1 Can Cause System Errors
`
`USB 2.0 Specification
`(Ex. 1008)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1008-0344 (cited on POR 44, 52, 59-60 and explained by Ex. 2011, ¶¶ 116-117 )
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.41
`
`
`
`Mr. James Garney
`Co-Petitioner
`Samsung’s expert in
`district court
`
`POSAs Believed That SE1 Signals Would Preclude
`Click to edit Master title style
`Further USB Communication
`Q: And when you have 2.5 microseconds of the SE1
`condition, the hub will disconnect itself from the
`device, correct?
`A: If a hub sees an SE1 condition for more than 2-1/2
`microseconds, it would put the port into a disconnect
`state.
`Q: And what does that mean, being in a disconnect
`state?
`A: The things that are attached to that –to that hub at
`that port would be – another word that’s used is a
`disabled port. No more signaling – 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.
`Ex. 2005, 261:6-22(cited on POR 5-6); see also Ex. 2013 at 112:6-12, 103:18-
`104:4, 106:11-109:17, 71:4-11 (cited on POR 6)
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`DX 1.42
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`
`
`SE1 Never Used in Connection with
`Click to edit Master title style
`USB Communication
`
`• Shiga: SE1 sent when the signal lines between the USB
`keyboard and the computer were “not connected”
`• Kerai: SE1 sent when communication was “inactive”
`• Cypress: SE1 sent when USB is “disabled”
`• Casebolt: SE1 “causes USB functions to be
`terminated”
`
`POR 6-7, 57-58; Ex. 2011, ¶¶ 38-43
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.43
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`In Shiga, SE1 Is Not Used For USB Communication
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: Now, in Shiga the SE1 signal is sent
`before the computer can participate in
`USB communication with the keyboard,
`correct?
`A: That’s fair to say, yes.
`Q: There is a physical switch that blocks
`USB communication until after the SE1
`signal is sent and it wakes up the
`computer, correct?
`A: Right, that’s correct.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2013 at 204:19-205:1 (cited POR 7)
`
`DX 1.44
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`In Casebolt, SE1 Is Not Used For USB Communication
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: In the Casebolt reference, the SE1
`signal is used to terminate USB
`communication and initiate PS/2
`communication, correct?
`A: That appears what’s being explained
`there, yes.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2013 at 97:4-7 (cited POR 7)
`
`DX 1.45
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`In Cypress, SE1 Is Not Used For USB Communication
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: [I]n the Cypress design, the SE1 signal is
`only used when the device is in PS/2
`communication mode and when USB
`communication is deactivated, correct?
`A: That’s what it appears to be, yes.
`
`Ex. 2013 at 98:24-99:3 (cited POR 7)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.46
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`In Kerai, SE1 Is Not Used For USB Communication
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: So in Kerai, the SE1 signal is sent
`when the USB connection is
`inactive, correct?
`A: The connection is, with the
`serial connection meaning the data
`flow, the data communication
`would be inactive.
`
`Ex. 2013 at 100:2-6 (cited POR 7)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.47
`
`
`
`No Ability to Distinguish Between
`Click to edit Master title style
`Intentional And Unintentional SE1
`
`Dr. Kenneth Fernald
`USB/Power Circuit
`designer with over 30
`years of experience
`
`“Unlike normal USB packets which carry
`with them address information to
`identify the device from which the packet
`originates, SE1 is just a bus condition
`with no accompanying identification
`information. The host therefore would
`not receive an address for use in
`determining which device sent the SE1.
`Rogers' base unit would therefore not
`know whether the SE1 signal came from
`a 48VDC-capable device.”
`
`Ex. 2011, ¶ 109 (cited on POR 58)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.48
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`State of the Art
`
`Mr. Geier’s Experience
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.49
`
`
`
`Mr. Geier Has Not Designed a USB Device That
`Click to edit Master title style
`Exceeded USB Limits
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: Have you ever at any time in your
`career ever designed a device in which
`power is supplied through the USB
`connector in excess of the USB
`specification?
`A: Dealing with specifically USB and
`providing power over the USB cables or
`connection, I have not designed a
`power supply that exceeds those USB
`limits for a USB-specified device, USB-
`compliant device.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.50
`
`Ex. 2013 at 20:5-21 (cited POR 12)
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Mr. Geier Does Not Recall “Without Enumeration”
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: In any time in your career have
`you ever designed a device in which
`a USB connector on a device was
`used for both USB communication
`and USB power supply in which
`enumeration did not occur?
`A: I can't remember specifically. I
`can't remember a specific application
`that meets that criteria.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2013 at 28:6-11 (cited POR 36)
`
`DX 1.51
`
`
`
`Mr. Geier Has Not Designed a USB Device
`Click to edit Master title style
`That Used SE1 Intentionally
`
`Q: Have you ever designed at any time in
`your career a device that used the SE1
`signal intentionally?
`A: In terms of design where I’m actually
`designing the circuits on the particular
`product, I have not designed that into
`these applications that I talked about.
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Ex. 2013 at 29:18-23 (cited POR 12)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.52
`
`
`
`Mr. Geier Does Not Recall
`Click to edit Master title style
`USB Specification Teaching Non-Compliancy
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: Does the USB 2.0 specification teach
`persons of ordinary skill in the art to
`create noncompliant USB devices?
`A: I can’t remember specifically in there if
`there is any statements that say that you
`can use certain things to provide
`noncompliancy or not. I don’t remember
`seeing that in there.
`I don’t remember seeing some statements
`in the specifications saying that.
`
`Ex. 2013 at 54:3-12 (cited POR 12)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.53
`
`
`
`Mr. Geier Does Not Recall SE1 Being Used
`Click to edit Master title style
`In Connection With USB Communication
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: Point to me a single device anywhere in
`the world or any reference anywhere in the
`world at any time before the ‘550 patent in
`which an SE1 signal was intentionally sent to
`a device while it needed to be able to
`participate in USB communication?
`A: Again, I can’t point you to one of those
`that deals with – I mean, I can’t think of one
`that deals with sending the SE1 condition
`or signal when it’s communicating data or
`capable of communicating data that has to
`do with the application.”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2013 at 113:20-114:5 (cited POR 12)
`
`DX 1.54
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Skill Level
`
`Mr. Geier’s Analysis
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.55
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Mr. Geier Has No Opinion on Skill Level
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner expert
`
`Q: What's the level of ordinary skill in the art of the
`patent at issue in this case?
`A: That's something I didn't analyze. Again, I was
`asked to use a particular level, you know, at least
`defined as a certain way.
`Q: Do you have any independent expert opinion on
`what the level of ordinary skill in the art is of the
`'550 patent?
`A: Again, that's something I didn't analyze. I don't
`have a specific opinion sitting here. I was asked to
`use that particular level, that's in my declaration.
`
`Ex. 2013 at 44:6-16 (cited POR 11)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.56
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Mr. Geier Was Provided With The POSA Definition
`
`Mr. Geier
`Petitioner’s expert
`
`“For purposes of this declaration, I have
`been asked to apply the following
`standard for a person of ordinary skill in
`the art (POSITA) of the subject matter of
`the ’550 patent: the POSITA would have
`had a master’s degree in electrical
`engineering, computer science, or a
`related field, plus 2-3 years of experience
`with Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’).”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.57
`
`Ex. 1009, ¶ 23 (cited on Pet. 5 n.12)
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Topics
`
`• Real party in interest
`• State of the art
`• Rogers
`• Shiga
`• Claim construction
`• A POSA would not exceed USB current limits
`• A POSA would not forgo USB enumeration
`• A POSA would not incorporate SE1 in Rogers
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.58
`
`
`
`Rogers Adopts USB In Order To Ensure
`Click to edit Master title style
`Interoperability
`
`“The accessory system is designed for
`future expansion. In order to
`facilitate the expansion selection,
`the LAN telephone uses the Universal
`Serial Bus (USB) to communicate
`with the accessories.”
`
`Ex. 1005, 10:58-62 (cited on POR 8-9)
`
`Rogers (Ex. 1005)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit- Not Evidence
`
`Dem
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`DX 1.59
`
`
`
`Click to edit Master title style
`Rogers Uses USB Communication
`
`“The microprocessor 124
`con
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
