`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES T. GEIER
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`
`
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0001
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.(cid:1)
`
`II.(cid:1)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1(cid:1)
`
`Background/Qualifications .............................................................................. 1(cid:1)
`
`III.(cid:1) Documents and Materials Considered ............................................................. 2(cid:1)
`
`IV.(cid:1) Legal Principles ............................................................................................... 3(cid:1)
`
`V.(cid:1)
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 8(cid:1)
`
`VI.(cid:1)
`
`’550 Patent ....................................................................................................... 9(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1)
`
`Summary ............................................................................................... 9(cid:1)
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 9(cid:1)
`
`Priority Date ........................................................................................10(cid:1)
`
`VII.(cid:1) Technology Background & State of the Art ..................................................11(cid:1)
`
`VIII.(cid:1) Claim Construction ........................................................................................20(cid:1)
`
`IX.(cid:1)
`
`Invalidity Opinions ........................................................................................21(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1)
`
`Rogers renders obvious claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18. ..............................21(cid:1)
`
`1.(cid:1)
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`Rogers .......................................................................................21(cid:1)
`
`Application of Rogers to claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18 ...................25(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1)
`
`Rogers and Shiga render obvious claims 4-8 and 13-17. ....................39(cid:1)
`
`1.(cid:1)
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`3.(cid:1)
`
`Shiga ..........................................................................................39(cid:1)
`
`The Rogers/Shiga combination .................................................42(cid:1)
`
`Application of the Rogers/Shiga combination to claims 4-
`8 and 13-17 ................................................................................46(cid:1)
`
`X.(cid:1) Opinion on Rogers Provisional......................................................................53(cid:1)
`
`
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`i
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0002
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1. My name is James T. Geier. I submit this declaration on behalf of
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. (“Petitioner”), which I understand are challenging the validity of
`
`claims 1-18 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 (“the 550
`
`patent”) in a petition for inter partes review.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide an opinion on the validity of the
`
`challenged claims. In my opinion, U.S. Patent No. 6,556,564 (“Rogers”) renders
`
`obvious claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18 of the ’550 patent, and the combination of Rogers
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 6,625,738 (“Shiga”) render obvious claims 4-8 and 13-17 of
`
`the ’550 patent.
`
`II. Background/Qualifications
`
`3.
`
`Appendix A to this declaration is my curriculum vitae, which sets
`
`forth my qualifications.
`
`4.
`
`I received a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from California
`
`State University in 1985. In 1990, I received an M.S. degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the Air Force Institute of Technology.
`
`5.
`
`I have 30 years’ experience in the communications industry designing,
`
`analyzing, and implementing communications systems, wireless networks, and
`
`mobile devices. I have authored over a dozen books on mobile and wireless topics,
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`1
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0003
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`including Designing and Deploying 802.11 Wireless Networks (Cisco Press),
`
`Implementing 802.1X Security Solutions (Wiley), Wireless Networking Handbook
`
`(New Riders) and Network Re-engineering (McGraw-Hill). I have been an active
`
`participant within standards organizations, such as the IEEE 802.11 Working
`
`Group and the Wi-Fi Alliance. I have served as Chairman of the IEEE Computer
`
`Society, Dayton Section, and various conferences.
`
`6.
`
`I have significant experience with USB, which includes reviewing and
`
`analyzing USB specifications and designing and integrating corresponding USB
`
`interfaces within various applications. Since 1998, I have been analyzing the
`
`operation and limitations of USB in relation to mobile devices that I have
`
`designed. For example, during 1998-1999, I analyzed and tested the integration of
`
`USB into Monarch Marking Systems bar code scanners and printers. Also, during
`
`2008-2009, I integrated USB into a microcontroller-based monitoring and control
`
`system, which involved writing software drivers to interface the microcontroller to
`
`the functionality of a USB port. In addition, I have analyzed how USB impacts the
`
`operation and specifications of many other devices, such as wireless IP phones and
`
`patient heart monitors, which I’ve been part of designing.
`
`III. Documents and Materials Considered
`
`7.
`
`Appendix B to this declaration lists materials that I have considered in
`
`rendering the opinions that I express in this declaration. In forming my opinions, I
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`2
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0004
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`have also relied on my experience and education.
`
`IV. Legal Principles
`
`8.
`
`I am not an attorney. I offer no opinions on the law. But counsel has
`
`informed me of legal standards that apply to the issue of patent validity. I have
`
`applied these standards in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`9.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review the petitioner has the burden
`
`of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. I
`
`understand this standard is different from the standard that applies in a district
`
`court, where I understand a challenger bears the burden of proving invalidity by
`
`clear and convincing evidence.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid based on anticipation if a
`
`single prior art reference discloses all of the features of that claim, and does so in a
`
`way that enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention.
`
`Each of the claim features may be expressly or inherently present in the prior art
`
`reference. I understand that if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance
`
`with, or includes a claim’s feature, then that prior art inherently discloses that
`
`feature. I have relied on this understanding in expressing the opinions set forth
`
`below.
`
`11.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference describes the claimed invention
`
`if it either expressly or inherently describes each and every feature set forth in the
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`3
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0005
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`claim; i.e., in determining whether a single item of prior art anticipates a patent
`
`claim, one should take into consideration not only what is expressly disclosed in
`
`that item, but also what is inherently present as a natural result of the practice of
`
`the system or method disclosed in that item.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that to establish inherency, the evidence must make clear
`
`that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the item of prior art and
`
`that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art. I also
`
`understand that prior art use of the claimed patented invention that was accidental,
`
`unrecognized, or unappreciated at the time of filing can still be an invalidating
`
`anticipation.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that although multiple prior art references may not be
`
`combined to show anticipation, additional references may be used to interpret the
`
`allegedly anticipating reference and shed light on what it would have meant to
`
`those skilled in the art at the time of the invention. These additional references
`
`must make it clear that the missing descriptive matter in the patent claim is
`
`necessarily present in the allegedly anticipating reference, and that it would be so
`
`recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that a patent may not be valid even though the invention
`
`is not identically disclosed or described in the prior art if the differences between
`
`the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`4
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0006
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the relevant subject matter at the time the invention was made.
`
`15. To determine if a claim is obvious, the following factors should be
`
`considered: (1) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
`
`made; (2) the scope and content of the prior art; (3) the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) secondary considerations, including
`
`evidence of commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, unsuccessful
`
`attempts by others, copying of the claimed invention, unexpected and superior
`
`results, acceptance and praise by others, independent invention by others, and the
`
`like.
`
`16. For example, I understand that the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. I also understand that an obviousness analysis need not
`
`seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
`
`claim because a court can take account of the inferences and/or creative steps that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the obviousness determination of an invention turns
`
`on whether a hypothetical person with ordinary skill and full knowledge of all the
`
`pertinent prior art, when faced with the problem to which the claimed invention is
`
`addressed, would be led naturally to the solution adopted in the claimed invention
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`5
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0007
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`or would naturally view that solution as an available alternative. Facts to be
`
`evaluated in this analysis include:
`
`(cid:120) The scope and contents of the prior art;
`
`(cid:120) Differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`(cid:120) The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`(cid:120) Evidence of objective factors suggesting or negating obviousness.
`
`(cid:120) I understand that the following rationales may be used to determine whether
`a piece of prior art can be combined with other prior art or with other
`information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art:
`
`(cid:120) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`
`(cid:120) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`results;
`
`(cid:120) Use of known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products)
`in the same way;
`
`(cid:120) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready
`for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(cid:120) “Obvious to try” - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`(cid:120) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in
`either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of
`ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`(cid:120) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led
`one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
`reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that when a work is available in one field of endeavor,
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`6
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0008
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`design incentives and/or other market forces, for example, can prompt variations of
`
`it, either in the same field or a different one. Moreover, if a person of ordinary skill
`
`can implement a predictable variation, I understand that that likely bars its
`
`patentability.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that obviousness must be tested as of the time the
`
`invention was made. I understand that the test for obviousness is what the
`
`combined teachings of the prior art references would have suggested, disclosed, or
`
`taught to one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, it is my understanding that a
`
`patent claim is invalid based upon obviousness if it does nothing more than
`
`combine familiar elements from one or more prior art references or products
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results. For example, I understand
`
`that where a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would improve similar
`
`devices in the same way, using that technique is obvious. I understand that
`
`obviousness can be proved by showing that a combination of elements was
`
`obvious to try, i.e.: that it does no more than yield predictable results; implements a
`
`predictable variation; is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements
`
`according to their established functions; or when there is design need or market
`
`pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions. I have been further informed that when a patent claim simply arranges
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`7
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0009
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`old elements with each element performing the same function it had been known to
`
`perform and yields results no more than one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that another factor to be considered is common sense.
`
`For example, I understand that common sense teaches that familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and, in many cases, a person of
`
`ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
`
`pieces of a puzzle.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the Supreme Court articulated additional guidance
`
`for obviousness in its KSR decision. My understanding is that the Supreme Court
`
`said that technical people of ordinary skill look for guidance in other solutions to
`
`problems of a similar nature, and that the obviousness inquiry must track reality,
`
`and not legal fictions. I have relied on these understandings in expressing the
`
`opinions set forth below.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a new use of an old product or material cannot be
`
`claimed as a new product; the apparatus or system itself is old and cannot be
`
`patented. I further understand that, in general, merely discovering and claiming a
`
`new benefit to an old process cannot render the process newly patentable.
`
`V.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`23. For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to apply the
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`8
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0010
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`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”).
`
`VI.
`
`’550 Patent
`
`A.
`
`Summary
`
`24. The ’550 patent relates to “[a]n adapter for providing a source of
`
`power to a mobile device through an industry standard port.”1 The ’550 patent has
`
`18 claims.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`25. The ’550 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/536,767,
`
`which was filed on June 28, 2012. That same day, the applicant cancelled all
`
`pending claims and added 18 new claims.2
`
`26. On May 28, 2013, the examiner rejected all pending claims based
`
`upon obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,986,127.3 In response, on August 7, 2013, the applicant filed a terminal
`
`disclaimer.4
`
`
`1 ’550 patent at 2:19-20.
`2 ’550 file history at 216.
`3 ’550 file history at 103-107.
`4 ’550 file history at 95-98.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`9
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0011
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`27. On September 5, 2013, the examiner issued a notice of allowance.5
`
`Before the patent issued, the applicant requested an amendment after allowance on
`
`November 19, 2013, to “correct minor clerical errors” and to “correct a
`
`typographical error” made to claim 27.6 The examiner approved the amendments,
`
`and the ’550 patent issued on January 7, 2014.7
`
`C.
`
`Priority Date
`
`28. The ’550 patent claims priority through a series of continuations to
`
`two provisional applications: (1) U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/273,021
`
`(“the ’021 provisional”), filed March 1, 2001; and (2) U.S. Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/330,486 (“the ’486 provisional”), filed October 23, 2001.
`
`29.
`
`I have reviewed the ’021 provisional and the ’486 provisional. In my
`
`opinion, the ’021 provisional does not describe the features added in claims 4-8
`
`and 13-17 of the ’550 patent. Specifically, the ’021 provisional contains no
`
`description for the following claim features:
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`said current is supplied in response to an abnormal data condition on
`said USB communication path (claims 4 and 13);
`
`said abnormal data condition is an abnormal data line condition on
`said D+ line and said D- line (claims 6 and 15);
`
`(iii)
`
`said abnormal data line condition is a logic high signal on each of said
`
`
`5 ’550 file history at 81-84.
`6 ’550 file history at 50-60.
`7 ’550 file history at 41.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`10
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0012
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`D+ and D- lines (claims 7 and 16); and
`
`(iv) each said logic high signal is greater than 2V (claims 8 and 17).
`
`30. The later-filed ’486 provisional is the first application in the priority
`
`chain that potentially provides written description for these claim elements.8 Thus,
`
`the earliest potential priority date for claims 4-8 and 13-17 is October 23, 2001.9
`
`My analysis remains the same regardless of whether the ’550 patent’s claims are
`
`entitled to a priority date of March 1, 2001 or October 23, 2001.
`
`VII. Technology Background & State of the Art
`
`31. As of March 2001, POSITAs were familiar with the USB
`
`Implementers Forum, Inc. (“USB-IF”), which has been responsible for “the
`
`advancement and adoption of Universal Serial Bus technology” since its inception
`
`in 1995.10 As of December 2000, USB-IF had more than 900 member companies
`
`that helped facilitate the development of USB.11
`
`32. POSITAs were also familiar with the USB specification and its
`
`various revisions. On September 23, 1998, USB-IF released Universal Serial Bus
`
`
`8 ’486 provisional, at 14:11-15:17.
`9 Both grounds in this petition apply even if the claims are entitled to the March 1,
`2001 filing date.
`10 https://web.archive.org/web/20001209192500/
`http://usb.org:80/info.html
`11 https://web.archive.org/web/20001202111600/
`http://www.usb.org:80/app/db/search/contacts
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`11
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0013
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`Specification, Revision 1.1 (“USB 1.1”).12 USB 1.1 was widely adopted by
`
`industry leaders and consumers. On April 27, 2000, USB-IF released USB
`
`Revision 2.0 (“USB 2.0”).13 Among USB 2.0’s improvements were faster speeds
`
`and additional functionality.
`
`33. POSITAs also understood the architecture for a USB system.
`
`Generally, a USB system includes a USB host, one or more USB devices, and a
`
`USB interconnect.14 A USB host (e.g., a laptop computer system) interacts with
`
`USB devices and is responsible for tasks such as (i) detecting the attachment and
`
`removal of USB devices; (ii) managing control and data flow between the host and
`
`USB devices; (iii) collecting status and activity statistics; and (iv) providing power
`
`to attached USB devices.15 A USB device connects to the USB host, and falls into
`
`one of two categories: (i) a hub, which has the ability to provide additional USB
`
`attachment points, or (ii) a function, which is a device that is able to transmit or
`
`receive data or control information over the USB bus (e.g., a peripheral device,
`
`such as a keyboard, mouse, or mobile phone).16 A USB interconnect is the manner
`
`in which USB devices are connected and communicate with the host.17 The
`
`
`12 USB 1.1 at 1.
`13 USB 2.0 at 1.
`14 USB 2.0 at 15; USB 1.1 at 15.
`15 USB 2.0 at 24; USB 1.1 at 24.
`16 USB 2.0 at 22-24; USB 1.1 at 21-24.
`17 USB 2.0 at 15; USB 1.1 at 15.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`12
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0014
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`following figure from USB 2.0 depicts a typical configuration of a USB host,
`
`interconnect, and device(s):18
`
`
`34. From the USB specifications, POSITAs also understood the USB
`
`cable structure. As of the claimed priority date, the “USB cable consist[ed] of four
`
`conductors, two power conductors, and two signal conductors.”19 The following
`
`figure from USB 2.0 depicts the four wires within a USB cable.20
`
`18 USB 2.0 at Figure 4.4.
`19 USB 2.0 at 86; USB 1.1 at 74.
`20 USB 2.0 at Figure 4-2.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`13
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0015
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`35. VBUS and GND deliver power, and D+ and D- carry signals for
`
`communication between a USB host and the connected device.21
`
`36. POSITAs also understood the USB connector structure. USB 1.1 and
`
`USB 2.0 specified Series “A” and Series “B” connectors.22 “Table 6-1 provides the
`
`standardized contact terminating assignments by numbers and electrical value for
`
`Series ‘A’ and Series ‘B’ connectors.”23
`
`According to USB 1.1 and USB 2.0, “[a]ll USB devices must have an ‘A’
`
`
`
`21 USB 2.0 at 17; USB 1.1 at 15.
`22 USB 2.0 at 85, 94; USB 1.1 at 73, 83.
`23 USB 2.0 at 94; USB 1.1 at 83.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`14
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0016
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`connector.”24 “The ‘B’ connector allows device vendors to provide a standard
`
`detachable cable.”25
`
`
`
`37. POSITAs also understood how the USB host configured a USB
`
`device. For example, USB 2.0 stated that “[w]hen a USB device is attached to or
`
`removed from the USB, the host uses a process known as bus enumeration to
`
`identify and manage the device state changes necessary.”26 In its “Bus
`
`Enumeration” section, USB 2.0 specified the bus-enumeration requirements,
`
`including eight actions taken “[w]hen a USB device is attached to a powered
`
`24 USB 2.0 at 85; USB 1.1 at 73.
`25 USB 2.0 at 85; USB 1.1 at 73.
`26 USB 2.0 at 243.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`15
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0017
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`port.”27
`
`38. POSITAs also understood that USB 2.0 imposed current limits on
`
`VBUS. For example, USB 2.0 limited a USB device’s current draw on VBUS to
`
`“one unit load [i.e., 100 mA] or less until configured.”28 USB 2.0 also stated that
`
`“[d]epending on the power capabilities of the port to which the device is attached,
`
`a USB device may be able to draw up to five unit loads [i.e., 500 mA] from VBUS
`
`after configuration.”29
`
`39. POSITAs also understood that USB 2.0 imposed voltage limits on
`
`VBUS. For example, USB 2.0 imposed a 5.25 V limit on the VBUS line.30
`
`40. POSITAs also knew about the different signaling states on the D+ and
`
`D- lines.31 Some of these states (e.g., Differential 0, Differential 1, Data J State,
`
`and Data K State) transmit data while others (e.g., Single-ended 0, Single-Ended 1)
`
`
`
`27 USB 2.0 at 243.
`28 USB 2.0 at 245.
`29 USB 2.0 at 245.
`30 USB 2.0 at 175.
`31 USB 2.0 at 123.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`16
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0018
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`are used as specific signaling conditions.32 Relevant here is the Single-Ended 1
`
`(“SE1”) condition.33 USB 2.0 defined “SE1” as “a state in which both the D+ and
`
`D- lines are at a voltage above VOSE1 (min), which is 0.8 V.”34 USB 2.0 also
`
`taught that the low- and full-speed USB drivers “must never ‘intentionally’
`
`generate an SE1 on the bus.”35 In other words, according to USB 2.0, an abnormal
`
`data condition would occur if D+ and D- were intentionally set in a high state
`
`above 0.8 V.
`
`
`32 USB 2.0 at 144-146, Table 7-2.
`33 USB 2.0 at 144-145.
`34 USB 2.0 at 123.
`35 USB 2.0 at 123.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`17
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0019
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`41. Finally, POSITAs knew that the SE1 condition would be a logical
`
`choice for signaling information about a device without interfering with USB
`
`signaling. For example, Casebolt taught that SE1 could be used as a special
`
`signaling mode. Specifically, Specifically, as shown below, the D+ and D- data
`
`lines would be connected to Vcc (+5V) to signal a PS/2 adapter.36
`
`
`
`36 Casebolt at FIG. 2C, 7:41-54, Table 1.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`18
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0020
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`Indeed, knowledge of SE1 was so common that Cypress Semiconductor integrated
`
`it into their enCoRe product, stating “USB D+ and D- lines can also be used for
`
`PS/2 SCLK and SDATA pins, respectively. With USB disabled, these lines can be
`
`placed in a high impedance state that will pull up to VCC.”37 As yet another
`
`example, Kerai used a high state on USB D+ and D- for charging.38 As shown
`
`below, both USB D+ and D- (yellow) are brought to a high state in cooperation
`
`with the charging system (green) for a special charging mode.
`
`37 Cypress datasheet at 21, 22, 24, 25, 41.
`38 Kerai at FIG. 3.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`19
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0021
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`Therefore, a POSITA would have understood that a high state on USB D+ and D-
`
`lines could be used in a variety of contexts, including PS/2 (e.g., Casebolt’s PS/2
`
`adapter), standard USB (e.g., the keyboard in Shiga), and others (e.g., Kerai’s
`
`charging scheme) and was not restricted to a single application.
`
`VIII. Claim Construction
`
`42. For purposes of this proceeding, in which I understand the standard
`
`for claim construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, I
`
`have been asked to apply the interpretation of the claim term in the table below.
`
`Claim Term
`
`USB enumeration
`
`Interpretation that I was asked to
`apply in this proceeding (in which the
`BRI standard applies)
`the bus-enumeration procedure specified
`in the USB 2.0 specification or an
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`20
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0022
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`earlier USB specification at the time of
`the alleged invention
`
`43. For every other claim term, I have applied the plain meaning of the
`
`term to persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`IX.
`
`Invalidity Opinions
`
`44.
`
`In my opinion, Rogers renders obvious claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18 (see
`
`Section A below), and the combination of Rogers and Shiga renders obvious
`
`claims 4-8 and 13-17 (see Section B below).
`
`A. Rogers renders obvious claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18.
`
`1.
`
`Rogers
`
`45. Rogers taught a local area network (“LAN”) telephone.39 An
`
`embodiment of the LAN telephone appears in Rogers’ Figure 1, reproduced
`
`below.40
`
`
`39 Rogers at 4:7-8.
`40 Rogers at 3:39-41, 4:7-9, FIG. 1.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`21
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0023
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`In Figure 1, the LAN telephone has a base unit 6 and an operator
`
`46.
`
`console 7.41 The base unit 6 receives power from a LAN cable 1 and delivers
`
`power via an accessory connector, such as connector 4, to the operator console 7.42
`
`47. To connect the base unit 6 to telephone accessories, Rogers uses “a
`
`modified USB” (also called an “enhanced USB”),43 which stands “[i]n contrast” to
`
`conventional USB specification limits.44 Rogers recognized that “[o]ne difficulty
`
`with the existing USB is that it has only a limited capability to provide power to a
`
`connected device.”45 To overcome the maximum 2.5 Watts of power available to
`
`peripheral devices in existing USB applications, Rogers’ telephone utilizes a “dual-
`
`voltage accessory power system” to “alternatively supply power at 48 VDC,
`
`41 Rogers at 4:8-12, 4:20-23.
`42 Rogers at 4:15-16, 10:21-24, 11:20-24, FIGS. 6, 7(a) & 7(b).
`43 Rogers at 10:64-67, 16:38-41.
`44 Rogers at 10:62-67.
`45 Rogers at 10:67-11:2.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`22
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0024
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`instead of 5 VDC, thus increasing power consumption by a factor of 10.”46
`
`48. An embodiment of Rogers’ telephone accessory power system
`
`appears in Rogers’ Figures 7(a) and (b), reproduced below.47
`
`
`
`49. Figure 7(a) shows a source power system of the base unit 6.48 Figure
`
`7(b) shows an internal power system of the accessory (e.g., the console 7).49 The
`
`source power system provides power to the accessory unit via an accessory
`
`connector 104 (e.g., “a USB ‘A’ connector”).50 Power enters the accessory “via a
`
`standard USB ‘B’ connector 105.”51 Each connector has four pins. Power pin 1 and
`
`ground pin 4 are used for power “at either 5VDC or at 48 VDC,”52 and pins 3 and
`
`4 are “used for data transfers.”53
`
`46 Rogers at 11:5-19.
`47 Rogers at 11:20-21, FIGS. 7(a) & 7(b).
`48 Rogers at 11:22-24.
`49 Rogers at 11:24-25.
`50 Rogers at 11:28-31.
`51 Rogers at 12:14-15.
`52 Rogers at 11:32-36.
`53 Rogers at 11:33-34.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`23
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0025
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`50.
`
`In operation, “when an accessory is connected, the accessory is
`
`queried by the base unit microprocessor 74, via the USB interface 55, to determine
`
`if the accessory uses 48 VDC.”54 “Such a query may, for example, be provided to
`
`the accessory over the data lines of the modified USB interface.”55 “If the
`
`microprocessor 74 determines that the accessory uses 48 VDC, then the
`
`microprocessor 74 switches the voltage to 48 VDC.”56
`
`51. An embodiment of the operator console 7 appears in Rogers’ Figure 8,
`
`reproduced below.57
`
`
`In Figure 8, the console includes “100 small buttons and 100 LED
`
`52.
`
`54 Rogers at 11:44-48.
`55 Rogers at 11:48-50.
`56 Rogers at 11:51-54.
`57 Rogers at 12:46-47.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`24
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0026
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`indicators.”58 “[A] typical LED indicator uses 20 milli-Amps.”59 “One of the USB
`
`Interfaces 123 is used for ‘Upstream’ communications, to the base unit, and
`
`another one is used for ‘Downstream’ communications, to additional
`
`accessories.”60 “The console accessory of FIG. 8 is an example of a device that
`
`generally needs more power than 0.5 Watts.”61
`
`2.
`
`Application of Rogers to claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18
`
`53. Rogers renders obvious claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18 as explained below.
`
`a.
`
`Claim 1
`
`54. Rogers renders obvious claim 1 as explained below.
`
`i.
`
`An adapter
`
`55. Rogers taught an adapter. Rogers’ base unit 6, shown in Figure 1,
`
`meets the adapter element. Rogers’ Figure 7(a) is also shown below for context.
`
`58 Rogers at 12:47-48.
`59 Rogers at 11:8-9.
`60 Rogers at 12:65-13:13
`61 Rogers at 12:57-59.
`
`Geier Declaration
`
`25
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`ZTE/SAMSUNG 1009-0027
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
`56.
`
`In particular, the base unit 6 “obtains its operating power from the
`
`LAN cable 1 shown in FIG. 1, through the Lan Connector 67.”62 In one
`
`embodiment, the LAN cable 1 delivers power “as 48VDC.”63 “Alternatively, the
`
`delivered power [to the base unit 6] could be other voltages, or even AC
`
`[alternating current].”64 The base unit 6 utilizes a “dual-voltage accessory power
`
`system,” also called a “source power system,” which is shown in Figure 7(a).65 The
`
`source power system “allows the LAN telephone to alternatively supply power at
`
`48VDC, instead of 5 VDC, thus increasing the power consumption by a factor of
`
`10.”66 Thus, the base unit 6 receives power (“as 48VDC,” “other voltages, or even
`
`AC”) and its source power system adapts the received p