`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`ZTE (USA) INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A. INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A. INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILE RESEARCH U.S.A. LLC, and
`LG ELECTRONICS ALABAMA, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2018-001111
`Patent No. 8,624,550
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE
`
`
`1 LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc., LG Electronics
`Mobilecomm U.S.A. Inc., LG Electronics Mobile Research U.S.A. LLC, and LG
`Electronics Alabama, Inc. were joined as parties to this proceeding via a Motion
`for Joinder in IPR2018-00461.
`
`10559817
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
`USB Technology .................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Power Distribution ....................................................................... 3
`B.
`Device-Specific Communication Requires Enumeration ............ 3
`C.
`Single Ended 1 ("SE1") Line State .............................................. 5
`III. The Prior Art References Differ From The '550 Inventions .................. 7
`A.
`Rogers Overview .......................................................................... 7
`B.
`Shiga Overview .......................................................................... 10
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 11
`V.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 12
`A.
`"To Supply Current . . . Without Regard To At Least One
`Associated Condition Specified In A USB Specification" ........ 12
`"Supply Current . . . Without Regard To At Least One
`USB Specification Imposed Limit" ........................................... 16
`VI. The Proceeding Should Terminate Because ZTE Has Failed To
`Name All RPIs ...................................................................................... 17
`Improper Expert Conduct During Deposition ...................................... 19
`VII.
`VIII. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18 Are Not Rendered Obvious
`By Rogers ............................................................................................. 20
`A.
`Rogers Does Not Disclose Or Render Obvious An
`Adapter "Configured To Supply Current On The VBUS
`Line Without Regard To A At Least One Associated
`Condition Specified In A USB Specification" (Claim 1) .......... 20
`1.
`Supplying 48VDC (Voltage) Does Not Satisfy The
`Limitation "Supply Current Without Regard To At
`
`B.
`
`10559817
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Least One Associated Condition Specified In A
`USB Specification" .......................................................... 20
`Rogers Does Not Teach Or Make Obvious
`Supplying Current In Excess Of 500mA ......................... 22
`a)
`Rogers Increases Power By Adjusting
`Voltage And Not Current ...................................... 23
`Petitioner Conflates the Current
`Consumption Internal to the Accessory
`Shown in Figure 7(b) with Current Supplied
`at VBUS pin in Figure 7(a) ................................... 26
`The Board Should Disregard Petitioner's
`New Invalidity Theories ........................................ 28
`Rogers Does Not Teach Or Make Obvious Supply
`Current In Excess Of 100mA Before Configuration ....... 33
`Rogers Does Not Teach Or Make Obvious
`Supplying Current Without Enumeration ........................ 34
`Rogers Does Not Disclose Or Render Obvious An
`Adapter "Configured To Supply Current On The VBUS
`Line Without Regard To At Least One USB
`Specification Imposed Limit" (Claim 10) .................................. 39
`Rogers Does Not Disclose Or Make Obvious Challenged
`Claims 2 Or 11 ........................................................................... 39
`Rogers Does Not Disclose Or Render Obvious The
`Adapter Of Claims 2 Or 11, "Wherein Said Current Limit
`Is 500 mA" (Claims 9, 18) ......................................................... 39
`Rogers Does Not Disclose Or Render Obvious The
`Adapter Of Claims 1 Or 10, "Wherein Said Current Is
`Supplied Without USB Enumeration" (Claims 3, 12) ............... 40
`IX. Ground 2: There Is No Motivation To Implement The Proposed
`Rogers/Shiga Combination, And Doing So Would Result In An
`Inoperable System ................................................................................ 40
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`10559817
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`Page
`
`A. A POSA Would Not Look To Shiga To Find A Way To
`Indicate To The Base Unit That A Connected Device Is
`48VDC Capable ......................................................................... 48
`1.
`Petitioner Provides No Reason Why A POSA
`Would Have Used SE1 In Response To Standard
`USB Communication ....................................................... 49
`SE1 Signal Disrupts Normal USB Communication
`Used By Rogers System .................................................. 51
`SE1 Provides No Advantage Over Rogers' USB
`Communication Protocol That Already Conveys
`48VDC Configuration ..................................................... 53
`There Is No Reasonable Expectation Of Success Of
`Applying SE1 In Rogers ............................................................ 57
`1.
`Prior Art Does Not Teach Use Of SE1 Where USB
`Communication Is Desired .............................................. 57
`Use Of SE1 in Rogers Requires Ability To
`Distinguish Intentional SE1 Signal From
`Unintentional SE1 Error .................................................. 58
`a)
`Scenario 1: A POSA Would Believe That
`Assuming SE1 As Coming From A 48VDC
`Device Would Electrically Damage Low
`Voltage Devices And Lead To Errors That
`Are Difficult To Isolate ......................................... 59
`Scenario 2: A POSA Would Believe That
`Responding To SE1 In Accordance With
`The USB Specification Interrupts USB
`Communication ..................................................... 60
`Shiga Is Not Analogous Art ....................................................... 63
`Petitioner's Other Obviousness Arguments Lack
`Specificity to The Inventions At Issue ....................................... 64
`Conclusion ............................................................................................ 65
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`X.
`
`10559817
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`b)
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Comm'ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 47, 64
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,
`Appeal Nos. 2017-1698, -1699 & -1701 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018) ............... 17
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ...................................................................... 63
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F. 3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 14
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 63
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..................................................................................... 11
`Meiresonne v. Google, Inc.,
`849 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 47
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 58
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc.,
`192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................... 62
`In re Van Os,
`844 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................. 33, 65
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 29
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R § 42.23 ................................................................................................ 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) .......................................................................................... 57
`
`10559817
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ................................................................................... 14
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ......................................................................................... 19
`
`10559817
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`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
`
`Ex. 2012
`
`Ex. 2013
`
`Ex. 2014
`
`Ex. 2015
`
`10559817
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Declaration of Kenneth Fernald, Ph.D. in Support of
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC's Patent
`Owner Preliminary Response
`Declaration of Mr. Steven Rogers in Support of Fundamental
`Innovation Systems International LLC's Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response
`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
`Sheasby PHV Declaration
`Fundamental-Samsung Settlement Agreement (Confidential)
`2018-07-02 Hearing Transcript
`Deposition Transcript of John Garney (Nov. 20, 2017) in
`Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co. (E.D. Tex.), full transcript
`Declaration of Kenneth Fernald, Ph.D. in Support of
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC's Patent
`Owner Response
`Declaration of Mr. Steven Rogers in Support of Fundamental
`Innovation Systems International LLC's Patent Owner
`Response
`Deposition Transcript of Mr. James T. Geier in IPR2018-
`00111 (July 30, 2018)
`ZTE (TX) Inc.'s corporate disclosure statement in Fractus,
`S.A. v. ZTE Corp. et al., Civ. No. 2:17-cv-00561-JRG (Sept.
`25, 2017, E.D. Tex.)
`ZTE (USA) and ZTE (TX) Inc.'s corporate disclosure
`statement in Saint Lawrence Communications LLC v. ZTE
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`Corp. et al., Civ. No. 2:15-cv-00349-JRG (May 26, 2015,
`E.D. Tex.)
`Amended complaint in Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l
`LLC v. ZTE Corp., 2:17-cv-00124-JRG (E.D. Tex.), now
`transferred to N.D. Tex. as 3:17-cv-01827-N.
`Declaration of Chao Shan in Support of ZTE's Motion to
`Dismiss in Fractus, S.A. v. ZTE Corp. et al., Civ. No. 2:17-
`cv-00561-JRG (Sept. 25, 2017, E.D. Tex.)
`LG Electronics Inc. Corporate Structure Tree
`2016-2017 LG Electronics Sustainability Report
`Excerpts from LG Corporation Annual Report (2017)
`(translated from Korean)
`LG Corporation Key Developments Report
`Jan Axelson, USB Complete (2d ed. 2001), additional excerpt
`Deposition Transcript of Daniel Fischer (May 9, 2018) in
`Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co. et al. (E.D. Tex.), Fundamental Innovation
`Sys. Int'l LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.),
`Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l LLC v. Huawei Device Co.,
`Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex.), Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l LLC
`v. ZTE Corp. et al. (N.D. Tex.), excerpt
`LinkedIn public profile of Dan Radut
`LinkedIn public profile of Jonathan Malton
`LinkedIn public profile of Michael Habicher
`
`Ex. 2016
`
`Ex. 2017
`
`Ex. 2018
`Ex. 2019
`Ex. 2020
`
`Ex. 2021
`Ex. 2022
`Ex. 2023
`
`Ex. 2024
`Ex. 2025
`Ex. 2026
`
`10559817
`
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550, entitled "Multi-Functional Charging System
`
`and Method" (the "'550 Patent"), stems from pioneering research performed by
`
`the power supply and distribution group at Research in Motion Ltd. ("RIM,"
`
`now Blackberry Ltd.). The patent discloses a novel USB adapter that can e.g.,
`
`in response to an abnormal USB data condition, supply current to USB devices
`
`without regard to a USB limit (e.g., a USB current limit) and without
`
`enumeration. See Paper 16 at 3-5; Ex. 2011, ¶¶127-131.
`
`The proceeding should be terminated because Petitioner failed to name
`
`ZTE (TX), Inc. and LG Corp. as real parties-in-interest ("PRIs"), under the
`
`standard recently clarified by the Federal Circuit.
`
`On merits, Petitioner relies on Rogers or Rogers and Shiga. The Board,
`
`in its institution decision, was unpersuaded by the theories in the Petition,
`
`concluding that the Petition failed to show a likelihood of success on claims 1-
`
`9 and 11-18. Paper 16 at 14-22. The record has not improved for Petitioner.
`
`Instead, in his deposition, Petitioner's expert, Mr. Geier, has confirmed key
`
`aspects of Patent Owner's arguments and admitted to the inaccuracy of theories
`
`upon which the Petition relies, including:
`
`10559817
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`•
`
`The power needed to operate Rogers' operator console can be
`
`•
`
`•
`
`provided by a current on the order of 200mA on the VBUS line.
`
`Geier at 185:6-24, 168:1-10, 181:5-14.
`
`A query-and-response can occur during or after USB enumeration.
`
`Id., 143:22-144:21, 188:16-22, 132:19-133:1. As disclosed,
`
`Rogers' 48VDC capability is exchanged in a query-and-response
`
`step. Ex. 1005, 11:44-56.
`
`Rogers' operator console functions that use the 48VDC high-
`
`power mode require USB data communication between Rogers'
`
`operator console and the base unit. Id., 197:23-200:21. USB data
`
`communication requires USB enumeration. Id., 233:24-234:4,
`
`53:7-55:13, 123:8-22.
`
`•
`
`Under the USB specification, SE1 interferes with USB data
`
`communications. Id. 112:6-12, 103:25-104:4.
`
`The Board should thus find that all claims are patentable. As to claim
`
`10, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board reconsider its claim
`
`construction. See §V.B. Under the correct construction, the claim is patentable
`
`over Rogers.
`
`Patent Owner's response relies in part on two expert declarations. The
`
`first is by Dr. Kenneth Fernald with decades of circuit design experience,
`
`10559817
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`including on USB controllers and power management. The second is by
`
`Steven A. Rogers, the author of Rogers. The Rogers declaration explains his
`
`designs as described in his patent, and why POSAs did not and would not
`
`deviate from normal USB communication protocols for his design.
`
`II. USB Technology
`Universal Serial Bus ("USB") was developed to "provide guidelines to
`
`build products that are interoperable and that different companies can make."
`
`Geier at 145:16-21.
`
`A.
`Power Distribution
`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 lines. VBUS carries a
`
`nominal voltage of about 5V, and a maximum of 5.25V. 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 device informs a USB host of its maximum power consumption
`
`as multiples of "2mA," i.e., as amounts of current. Ex. 1008-0294 (see entry
`
`for "bMaxPower").
`
`B. Device-Specific Communication Requires Enumeration
`To support interoperability, USB specification requires that "USB
`
`devices present a standard interface in terms of" their "comprehension of the
`- 3 -
`
`10559817
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`USB protocol," "response to standard USB operations" and "standard
`
`capability descriptive information." Ex. 1008-0045, §4.1.1.2.
`
`USB technology provides for the above needs with a process 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.
`
`Petitioner acknowledges 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.").
`
`USB enumeration involves multiple queries and responses. Ex. 1008,
`
`0271-272; Ex. 2011, ¶¶27-31; Ex. 2003-9 ("For a successful enumeration, the
`
`device must respond to each request by returning the requested information . . .
`
`."); Ex. 2006-13 (same). In one USB enumeration step, the USB host queries
`
`the device's capability via a "Get_Descriptor" request. Ex. 1007-0195; Ex.
`
`1008-0271; Ex. 2003-12, -13; Ex. 2006-17; Ex. 2011, ¶¶28, 93-94. The device
`
`responds with standard field descriptors, which can include fields that inform
`
`the host of the device's unique features, such as its ability to accept voltages or
`
`currents that exceed the USB limits. E.g., Ex. 2004 (Amoni), 6:32-7:44; Ex.
`
`2011, ¶¶28-30 (the field descriptors mentioned in Amoni are standard USB
`
`10559817
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`field descriptors for USB enumeration). Using the descriptors in the responses,
`
`the USB host then configures the device, the last step of USB enumeration. Ex.
`
`1008-0272.
`
`After the USB device is "configured," it draws up to the amount of
`
`current allocated in the selected configuration. Id. Before then, the device
`
`draws at most 100 mA of current. Ex. 1007-0158; Ex. 1008-0206. Further,
`
`until the device is configured, the device can only respond to standard requests,
`
`and cannot perform any device-specific functions. Ex. 2003-6, Ex. 2006-6
`
`(application communications occur after enumeration); Ex. 2011, ¶31; Ex.
`
`1008-0271, §9.1.1.5 ("Before a USB device's function may be used, the device
`
`must be configured.").
`
`C.
`Single Ended 1 ("SE1") Line State
`"SE1 is a state in which both the D+ and D- lines are at a voltage above
`
`. . . 0.8 V." Ex. 1008-0151, §7.1.1. The USB specification warns against
`
`"intentionally" generating an SE1 on the bus. Id. James Garney, co-petitioner
`
`Samsung's expert, acknowledged that an SE1 condition interferes with USB
`
`signaling because a USB port enters a "disconnect state" upon observing SE1,
`
`thus preventing additional USB data signaling.2 Ex. 2005, 261:6-22 (". . . no
`
`
`2 In systems described in the '550 patent, the devices and adapters
`recognize each other using an algorithm separate from USB enumeration and
`
`10559817
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`more data signaling would be delivered . . . across that connection between the
`
`hub and the attached device or hub that might be connected to it"); see also Ex.
`
`2011, ¶¶36-37. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Geier, agrees with this assessment for a
`
`USB-compliant device and host. Geier at 112:6-12 (host port disabled after
`
`receiving SE1), 103:18-104:4 (device "no longer able to communicate USB
`
`data" after receiving SE1), 106:11-109:17 (SE1 affects power draw), 71:4-11
`
`(no recollection of a USB-compliant device that "participated in USB
`
`communication" and did not "go into a disconnect or reset mode" upon
`
`receiving an SE1 signal).
`
`Petitioner suggests that the "SE1 condition would be a logical choice for
`
`signaling information about a device without interfering with USB signaling."
`
`Pet. 11-12. But none of the prior art it cites used SE1 when USB
`
`communication was active or desired. For example, Shiga's SE1 was 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 sent SE1 were "not connected" to the signal lines of the host
`
`when SE1 was sent). Similarly, to the extent that the cited portion of Kerai
`
`
`therefore do not suffer from the problems encountered by Petitioner's attempt
`to shoehorn SE1 into the Rogers system.
`
`10559817
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`relates to USB,3 the purported SE1 state where both data lines were held high
`
`would only occur when the serial 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 signal "causes USB functions to be
`
`terminated." Ex. 1010, 7:40-46. In each of these examples, SE1 signaling is
`
`used in a context where USB communication is not possible (Shiga and Kerai),
`
`disabled (Cypress), or to be disabled (Casebolt). Ex. 2011, ¶¶38-43.
`
`Petitioner's expert affirms that none of the above references involved the
`
`use of an SE1 signal when the devices needed to have the ability to participate
`
`in USB communication. Geier at 97:4-7, 98:24-99:3, 100:2-6; 204:19-205:1.
`
`Indeed, he was unable to identify any prior art references "in which an SE1
`
`signal was intentionally sent to a device while it needed to be able to
`
`participate in USB communication." Id., 113:20-114:5.
`
`III. The Prior Art References Differ From The '550 Inventions
`A. Rogers Overview
`Rogers involves a local area network ("LAN") telephone with a "base
`
`unit." The base unit can include a telephone handset, a speakerphone, and a
`
`status display. Ex. 1005, 4:13-15. The base unit expands its functionality by
`
`
`3 Geier at 100:7-101:22 (unable to tell "what type of serial connection is
`being used in Kerai"). Additionally, SE1 is not a precondition for Kerai to
`draw power over the data lines. Ex. 1012, 5:45-56, Fig. 3; Ex. 2011, ¶40.
`- 7 -
`
`10559817
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`connecting to "a variety of accessory devices." Id., 4:20-23. Figure 1 shows
`
`Rogers' base unit 6 connected to an accessory operator console 7.
`
`
`
`As shown above, Rogers's base unit receives its power from a "LAN
`
`Cable." Ex. 1005, 10:21-24, Figs. 1 & 6. Rogers' base unit may use two power
`
`cables, each providing 500 mA of direct current at 48 volts, for a total of 48
`
`watts, which "is more than enough to operate the LAN telephone and attached
`
`accessories." Id., 10:26-38.
`
`Suitable accessories for Rogers' base unit include "an operator console
`
`and an external speakerphone unit." Id., 10:56-59. Rogers' "accessory system
`
`is designed for future expansion." Id., 10:59-60. "In order to facilitate the
`
`expansion selection, the LAN telephone uses the Universal Serial Bus (USB) to
`
`communicate with the accessories," as "USB is a relatively simple, fast . . .,
`
`and standardized bus used for computer devices." Id., 10:60-64. Rogers notes,
`
`10559817
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`however, that USB has "only a limited capability to provide power to a
`
`connected device," and thus Rogers' USB interconnection is "modified" to
`
`allow for supply of greater power to the accessories. Id., 10:64-11:19.
`
`This greater power supply is attained by providing voltage at "48 VDC,
`
`instead of 5 VDC," the nominal supply voltage for a USB connection. Id.,
`
`11:2-3 & 11:16-19; Ex. 2012, ¶10. This modification is accomplished through
`
`a "dual-voltage accessory power system," which allows USB devices to draw
`
`power at either 5V or 48V, depending on their capability. See Ex. 1005, 11:14-
`
`19, 11:44-56 (supplying 5 VDC by default, and switching to 48 VDC only for
`
`confirmed 48VDC capable accessories).
`
`Rogers only supplies more power than available from a USB host by
`
`increasing the supply voltage—the supply current is not modified. Ex. 2012,
`
`¶¶7-10. For example, Rogers teaches that its modified system "suppl[ies]
`
`power at 48 VDC, instead of 5 VDC, thus increasing the power consumption
`
`by a factor of 10." Id., 11:14-19. Elsewhere, Rogers notes that "P=I*V where
`
`P=Power, I=Current, and V=Voltage." Id., 10:29-32. A POSA thus would
`
`understand the passage as teaching that the 10X power increase results only
`
`from the 10X increase in voltage with no change in current. Ex. 2012, ¶10; Ex.
`
`2011, ¶¶62-64, 67. Petitioner's expert admits that Rogers' 11:14-19 is
`
`discussing "the inventive LAN telephone system" and that in this system
`
`10559817
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`"current is held constant." Geier at 174:19-176:13.
`
`Rogers further teaches that its design "allows the accessory to
`
`automatically switch from the low-power to high-power modes." Ex. 1005,
`
`12:12-14. Of note, the accessory "functions that require higher power" are
`
`only enabled "[i]f 48 VDC is present." Id., 12:38-40; Ex. 2011, ¶75; Ex. 2012,
`
`¶17.
`
`B.
`Shiga Overview
`Shiga teaches a USB keyboard connected to a wake-up means to wake
`
`the host computer from an "off state." Ex. 1006, 1:11-19, 2:18-30. The
`
`keyboard receives power from a battery sub-power supply when the host is off.
`
`Id., 2:31-42. When certain buttons on the keyboard are pressed, the keyboard
`
`sends an SE1 signal to the wake-up means, causing the main power supply of
`
`the computer to turn on. Id., 3:40-55. At the time Shiga's keyboard sends the
`
`SE1 signal to the computer, the data lines between the host and the USB
`
`keyboard "are not connected to each other." Ex. 1006, 6:4-11. Instead, the
`
`USB keyboard's data lines are connected to a pair of comparators in the wake-
`
`up means. Id., 6:65-7:8, 2:50-58, 3:1-3. The comparators compare the voltage
`
`on the D+ and D- lines to a threshold voltage and output the determination to
`
`an AND circuit, which then outputs a signal to turn on the main power supply.
`
`Id., 7:9-15. Only then are the data lines between the host and USB keyboard
`
`10559817
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`reconnected. Id., 7:16-30, 2:59-65, 3:3-7. Hence, Shiga's SE1 signal does not
`
`risk interfering with the host's normal USB communication, because the
`
`keyboard's data lines are disconnected from the host when the SE1 is sent. Ex.
`
`1006, 6:4-11, 6:65-7:15; Ex. 2011, ¶¶38-39. Thus, Shiga never suggests
`
`sending SE1 when a host is conducting normal USB communication with a
`
`connected USB device.
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill
`Dr. Fernald opines that a POSA is one with a bachelor's degree in
`
`electrical engineering and 3-5 years of experience in circuit or device design,
`
`or equivalents thereof. Ex. 2011, ¶¶44-45. In contrast, Petitioner's definition
`
`of a POSA excludes not only many of the '550 patent's inventors (Ex. 2011,
`
`¶45), but also the author of Rogers, who was a person of extraordinary skill
`
`with decades of experience in device designs at the time of the inventions (Ex.
`
`2012, ¶¶4-5).
`
`Petitioner's expert did not investigate "what the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art is of the '550 patent" and just blindly applied the definition of a POSA
`
`supplied by Petitioner. Geier at 44:6-45:7; Ex. 1009, ¶23. In addition to
`
`applying the wrong education and experience level, Petitioner's definition also
`
`fails to "consider the inferences and creative steps a [POSA] would employ."
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007). Hence, it posits that a
`
`10559817
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`POSA would have ignored the fundamental tenants of the USB specification, a
`
`position at complete odds with its expert's own experience. Geier at 20:5-
`
`21(never exceeded current limits); 29:18-23 (never employed SE1); 54:3-12
`
`(USB specification teaches 100% compliance); 113:20-114:5 (no prior art "in
`
`which an SE1·signal was intentionally sent to a device while it to be able to
`
`participate in USB communication"). Mr. Geier's failure to investigate the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art means that no evidence supports Petitioner's
`
`assumptions, which are faulty as Dr. Fernald explains. Ex. 2011, ¶46.
`
`V. Claim Construction
`A.
`"To Supply Current . . . Without Regard To At Least One
`Associated Condition Specified In A USB Specification"4
`In its institution decision, the Board construed "associated condition" as
`
`"a condition associated with the supply of current of the VBUS line, and not a
`
`condition associated with, for example, voltage." Paper 16 at 8. Patent Owner
`
`agrees with this construction, as this comports with the plain language of the
`
`claim in which the "associated condition" refers back to the phrase "supply
`
`current on the VBUS line." Examples of such a condition include current flow
`
`direction, maximum allowable current amounts, or length of period with no bus
`
`activities. Ex. 2001, ¶48.
`
`
`4 Unlike "a USB Specification imposed limit," an "associated condition"
`can be a non-numerical factor. Ex. 2001, ¶48.
`- 12 -
`
`10559817
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`The construction also comports with the patent disclosures, as they refer
`
`only to limiting electrical current and not voltage. See Paper 16 at 7-8; Ex.
`
`1001, 8:15-26 (e.g., "The USB specification specifies a process for transferring
`
`energy across the USB called enumeration and limits the electrical current that
`
`can flow across the USB"); Ex. 1004-0006, 3:9-14; Ex. 2011, ¶¶49-50; POPR
`
`at 15-17.
`
`The Board's construction also comports with extrinsic evidence. The
`
`USB specification treats as distinct "Supply Voltage" and "Supply Current," as
`
`shown in the excerpt below. Ex.1008-0206; Ex. 2011, ¶51. Petitioner's expert
`
`agrees that the USB specification "indicat[es] them distinctly." Geier at 213:3-
`
`214:11.
`
`Petitioner's expert has admittedly formed no independent opinions on
`
`claim construction. Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 42-43; Geier at 205:16-24. Neither his
`
`10559817
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`declaration nor the Petition explains why a POSA would have interpreted a
`
`condition associated with supplying current as including voltage supply. Yet
`
`apparently, Petitioner now intends to argue that supplying 48VDC satisfies the
`
`limitation because in abstract "a voltage at a particular level would limit the
`
`current based on . . . the power that's available." Id., 210:25-211:2.
`
`This argument is untimely because "it is incumbent upon the Petitioner
`
`to explain in the Petition how each challenged claim is to be construed." Paper
`
`16 at 8 n.4 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)). Thus, should Petitioner belatedly
`
`raise this new argument in its reply, the Board should not consider it. 37 C.F.R
`
`§ 42.23 (replies "may only respond to arguments" raised in a response but not
`
`raise new arguments); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`
`821 F. 3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that the expedited nature of the
`
`IPRs require "that the initial petition identify 'with particularity' the 'evidence
`
`that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim'"). But even if
`
`considered, the new argument should be rejected because it finds no support in
`
`the patent specification and contradicts the USB specification.
`
`First, Mr. Geier admits that he was unable to locate any passage that
`
`supports the new position in the '550 patent. Geier Tr. 217:23-219:10.
`
`Second, Mr. Geier's analysis essentially rewrites the claim to "supply
`
`current power . . . without regard to at least one associated condition in a USB
`
`10559817
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`specification" and explains only why voltage supply is associated with power
`
`supply. Parties agree that the USB specifications do not include a power limit.
`
`Geier at 211:22-212:4; Ex. 2011, ¶51. Instead, a USB device communicates its
`
`power requirement as "2 mA units," i.e., as current and not power. Ex. 1008-
`
`0294 (see entry for bMaxPower); Ex. 2011, ¶55.
`
`
`
`
`
` Third, Mr. Geier's argument ignores the context of the limitation, which
`
`specifically recites a condition "in a USB specification." In the USB
`
`specifications, current limits are not associated with voltage limits. Instead,
`
`they are indicated "distinctly." Geier at 214:2-11; Ex. 1008-0206. That is, the
`
`10559817
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`USB specification places independent upper and lower bounds on the supply
`
`voltage and supply current. Because of this, the voltage and current limits do
`
`not influence each other and are not associated with each other in the context of
`
`the USB specification. Ex
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
