`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`ZTE (USA) INC.
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00111
`Patent No. 8,624,550
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S SUR-REPLY
`
`10623207
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`Page
`Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
`I.
`Petitioner Improperly Attempts To Add ZTX As An RPI ..................... 5
`II.
`III. The Board Should Affirm Its Claim Construction And Find
`That Rogers' Disclosure Of 48VDC Does Not Render Claim 1
`Obvious ................................................................................................... 5
`IV. Petitioner's Claim 10 Construction Relies On The Same
`Defective Analysis As For Claim 1 And Should Be Rejected ............... 8
`Petitioner Ignores Rogers' Teachings And Fails To Show That
`Challenged Claims Are Obvious ............................................................ 9
`A.
`The Fernald and Rogers Declarations base their analysis
`on Rogers' disclosures as a whole .............................................. 11
`Rogers' disclosure of a modified USB supply voltage
`does not suggest departure from unrelated aspects of the
`USB Specification ...................................................................... 12
`Rogers does not disclose or suggest disregarding the
`USB current limits (claims 1-2, 9-11 and 18) ............................ 15
`Rogers does not disclose or suggest disregarding the
`USB enumeration process (claims 1, 3, 10, 12) ......................... 20
`Rogers and Shiga do not render obvious claims 4-8 and
`13-17 ........................................................................................... 23
`VI. The Trial Is Unconstitutional ............................................................... 27
`VII. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 27
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`10623207
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 2, 13
`
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems
`International LLC,
`IPR2018-00465, Paper 11 (PTAB, Aug. 20, 2018) .................... 14, 19, 21, 23
`
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems
`International LLC,
`IPR2018-00485, Paper 8 (PTAB, Sept. 4, 2018) ................................... 14, 19
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 US 398 (2007) ....................................................................................... 14
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`353 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ 9
`Personal Web Techs., LL v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 13
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International
`LLC,
`IPR2018-00215, Paper 26 (PTAB, Dec. 11, 2018) ................................ 14, 23
`
`10623207
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`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
`
`10623207
`
`
`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
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`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
`Fundamental-LG Settlement Agreement (Confidential)
`2018-11-28 Hearing Transcript
`ZTE (TX), Inc.'s answer to Fundamental's Amended
`Complaint
`ZTE USA, Inc.'s answer to Fundamental's Amended
`Complaint
`ZTE Corporation's answer to Fundamental's Amended
`Complaint
`Zhong Declaration regarding www.ztetx.com
`
`Ex. 2016
`
`Ex. 2017
`
`Ex. 2018
`Ex. 2019
`Ex. 2020
`
`Ex. 2021
`Ex. 2022
`Ex. 2023
`
`Ex. 2024
`Ex. 2025
`Ex. 2026
`Ex. 2027
`Ex. 2028
`Ex. 2029
`
`Ex. 2030
`
`Ex. 2031
`
`Ex. 2032
`
`10623207
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Petitioner's challenge to the '550 patent fails for multiple reasons.
`
`First, Petitioner has failed to name ZTE (TX), Inc. ("ZTX") as a real
`
`party-in-interest ("RPI"), a fact that it did not dispute. Reply generally.
`
`Second, although the claims expressly recite the "USB specification,"
`
`Petitioner's claim construction disregards relevant teachings in the USB
`
`specification. Petitioner, for example, ignores that the USB specification lists
`
`supply voltage limits and supply current limits as separate and distinct limits.
`
`Ex. 1008-206. Thus, supply voltage is neither a condition associated with nor a
`
`limit related to supplying current in the context of the USB specification.
`
`Third, Petitioner does not dispute that under the Board's claim
`
`construction, Rogers' supply of 48VDC does not satisfy claim 1's limitation
`
`"supply current without regard to at least one associated condition specified in
`
`
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`a USB specification." Reply 5-6. The same conclusion applies to claim 10
`
`under what Patent Owner respectfully submits is the correct claim construction.
`
`Fourth, contrary to Petitioner's assertion, Rogers does not "specifically
`
`criticize[] the USB current limits" or "suggest[] examples that would depart
`
`from those limits." Reply 6. Instead, Rogers is concerned with the USB's
`
`"limited capacity to provide power to a connected device." Ex. 1005, 10:67-
`
`11:2. Rogers solves this problem by increasing the supply voltage, and not the
`
`independent supply current. Id., 11:16-19. Indeed, Rogers expressly states that
`
`its supply "voltage is high so that the current required is as low as possible, for
`
`a given power level." Id., 10:29-33.
`
`Petitioner also does not explain how Rogers' teaching of exceeding the
`
`USB's supply voltage limit would have motivated a POSA to also exceed the
`
`supply current limit. Reply 10-12. Instead, it merely asserts "it would have
`
`been obvious to [a POSA] that they could supply current without regard to the
`
`USB current limits." Reply 10 (emphasis in original). That is legally
`
`insufficient as "obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could
`
`have made but would have been motivated to make the . . . modifications of
`
`prior art to arrive at the claimed invention." Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805
`
`F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis in original).
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`Petitioner has also provided no rebuttal evidence to Rogers' and
`
`Fernald's testimony on why a POSA would not have modified Rogers for
`
`higher supply current in light of Rogers' stated objectives. E.g., Ex. 2012, ¶9
`
`(Rogers' system was limited to the 500mA limit because "most USB cables
`
`used to connect the base unit with the accessories had wire gauges designed to
`
`carry a current of about 500 mA" and not higher amounts); Ex. 2011, ¶85
`
`(Rogers desires to keep current "as low as possible").
`
`Fifth, Petitioner offers no reason why Rogers' teaching of exceeding the
`
`USB supply voltage limit (a power requirement) would have motivated a
`
`POSA to deviate from the USB communication protocol so that the power
`
`requirement is communicated "without USB enumeration." Reply 13. In
`
`contrast, the Fernald and Rogers Declarations both testified, unrebutted, that a
`
`POSA would understand that Rogers used standard USB communication
`
`protocol, including the USB enumeration, because Rogers expressly states that
`
`it chose USB for communication to accommodate "future expansion."
`
`Ex. 2012, ¶¶20-22, 28; Ex. 2011, ¶¶46, 90-91, 99-101; Ex. 1005, 10:59-62.
`
`Petitioner also does not explain how Rogers' base unit could or would
`
`have communicated with and accessed the accessories' functions if it
`
`eliminated the USB enumeration process that the parties agree is required for a
`
`USB host to access a USB device's function.
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`Sixth, with respect to Ground 2, Petitioner provides no rebuttal to
`
`evidence showing that there was no reasonable expectation of success of
`
`utilizing Shiga's SE1 signal in Rogers' system. POR at 57-62; Reply 14-17;
`
`Institution Decision ("ID") 19-22. Instead, Petitioner merely reasserts its
`
`conclusory belief that, because Rogers increased its USB supply voltage,
`
`Rogers employed a non-USB query-and-response scheme. Reply 15-17.
`
`Petitioner does not explain how Rogers, as modified by Petitioner, could
`
`differentiate an SE1 signal indicating a 48V-capable device from an SE1 signal
`
`generated in error. As Dr. Fernald explains, if the SE1 signal generated in
`
`error were treated as a signal for a 48V-capable device, the mistake would
`
`result in "system errors that are very difficult to isolate and correct" (Ex 1008-
`
`0344), safety hazards and damaged device due to too high an operating voltage.
`
`Ex. 2011, ¶¶110-117. Because Petitioner has not shown that a POSA would
`
`have had a reasonable expectation of success, its obviousness theory fails.
`
`Ultimately, Petitioner's failure to carry its burden is unsurprising: Other
`
`accused infringers—Samsung, LGE, and Huawei—all abandoned Rogers in
`
`their final validity reports in the district court. For reasons stated in the record,
`
`the Board should rule in Patent Owner's favor.
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner Improperly Attempts To Add ZTX As An RPI
`Patent Owner has presented evidence that ZTX is an omitted RPI. POR
`
`17-19; Paper 50 at 8-9. Petitioner presents no contrary evidence. Reply;
`
`Papers 48, 51. Instead, it attempts to retroactively add ZTX as an RPI. Paper
`
`48. This is improper.
`
`III. The Board Should Affirm Its Claim Construction And Find That
`Rogers' Disclosure Of 48VDC Does Not Render Claim 1 Obvious
`The parties agree that "associated" in claim 1 refers back to "supply[ing]
`
`current." Reply 3. Petitioner argues without support that "[a]ll other things
`
`being equal, Ohm's law would have told those of skill in the art that limiting
`
`the supply voltage necessarily would also limit the current." Id. Petitioner
`
`does not explain whether, in the context of the '550 patent and the USB, "all
`
`others things [are] equal." Reply 3-4; POR 14-16. Dr. Fernald explains,
`
`however, "[i]n the USB specification, current and voltage are independent
`
`variables and the voltage level does not influence the limits set in the
`
`specification for current, and current levels do not influence the limits set in the
`
`specification for voltage." Ex. 2011, ¶49. Specifically, the USB specification
`
`lists independent limits for "Supply Voltage" and "Supply Current," and
`
`specifies that "a USB device communicates power need in units of current."
`
`Ex. 1008-0206, -0294; Reply 3; Ex. 2011, ¶¶49, 51, 55.
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As a result, in the USB specification, current and voltage limits are
`
`distinct, separate and independent of each other. For example, when the supply
`
`voltage is 4.4V, the current is still limited to the USB current limit of 500mA
`
`even if the USB power source can supply up to 2.5W of power which translates
`
`to 568mA at 4.4V. Ex. 2011, ¶49.
`
`Petitioner does not dispute the above, but argues that the USB
`
`specification's requirement that power be communicated in units of current is
`
`extrinsic evidence and is irrelevant. Reply 3. This ignores the context of the
`
`claims which concern "supply current on the VBUS line without regard to at
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`least an associated condition specified in a USB specification." Petitioner
`
`itself acknowledges that the '550 patent describes power and current limits by
`
`referencing the USB specification. Pet. 15 ("the '550 patent states that 'the
`
`USB specifies a process for transferring energy across the USB called
`
`enumeration and limits the electrical current that flow across the USB.'"); id.
`
`("For example, the '550 patent describes enumeration as a 'host-initiated
`
`process' needed 'to be compliant with the current USB specification in drawing
`
`power from the USB interface.'"). Hence, a POSA would review the USB
`
`specification to understand which conditions are associated with supplying
`
`current.
`
`Further, the doctrine of claim differentiation does not support Petitioner's
`
`claim construction. Reply 4. This is because conditions associated with
`
`supplying current in the USB specification encompass more than "a current
`
`limit" recited in claim 2. Ex. 2011, ¶48; POR 12. These non-current-limit
`
`conditions include factors such as "the direction of the flow of current" or time
`
`limits for triggering the suspend state, all of which are recited in the USB
`
`specification. Id. Because of this, claim 1 is broader than claim 2, albeit still
`
`limited to conditions "associated" with current supply. Hence, the doctrine of
`
`claim differentiation does not compel a reading that interprets "supply voltage"
`
`as a condition associated with supplying current over the VBUS line.
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`The Board should thus affirm its construction that "the 'associated
`
`condition' limitation of claim 1 [is] a condition associated with the supply of
`
`current of the VBUS line, and not a condition associated with, for example,
`
`voltage." ID 8. Under this correct construction, Rogers' use of 48VDC supply
`
`voltage does not render obvious claim 1 as the disregarded condition is not one
`
`"associated" with supplying current. Id., 13-14; Reply 5-6.
`
`IV. Petitioner's Claim 10 Construction Relies On The Same Defective
`Analysis As For Claim 1 And Should Be Rejected
`Claim 10 recites "supply current on the VBUS line without regard to at
`
`least one USB specification imposed limit." Petitioner argues that claim 10
`
`encompasses a supply voltage limit, relying on the same rationale as for
`
`claim 1. Reply 3-4. For the same reason as stated above and in the POR, the
`
`Board should reject Petitioner's construction and adopt Patent Owner's. POR
`
`16-17; Ex. 2011, ¶¶54-56.
`
`Specifically, because claim 10 recites "without regard to at least one
`
`USB specification imposed limit," a POSA would examine the USB
`
`specification to understand which limits regard supplying current. Dr. Fernald
`
`explains that a POSA would not understand supply voltage as a limit
`
`"regard[ing]" "supply[ing] current" in the USB because the USB specification
`
`lists the supply voltage limits and the supply current limits independently and
`
`because, in the USB specification, power is communicated as units of current.
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`Ex. 2011, ¶¶49, 55; POR 17. Petitioner does not dispute these facts. Reply 5-
`
`6.
`
`Claim differentiation also does not support Petitioner's construction: In
`
`the USB specification, limits related to current supply include not only current
`
`limits, but also, for example, time limits for transitions between various states
`
`that trigger different current limits. Ex. 2011, ¶56. Like claim 1, Roger's use
`
`of 48VDC does not disclose this claim 10 limitation under the correct claim
`
`construction, and Petitioner therefore cannot prevail under this theory.
`
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`(obviousness involves "a two-step inquir[y]," the first step of which "is a
`
`proper construction of the claims").
`
`V.
`
`Petitioner Ignores Rogers' Teachings And Fails To Show That
`Challenged Claims Are Obvious
`Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner attempts to "chang[e] the teachings
`
`of the Rogers patent." Reply 1. To the contrary, Patent Owner's Responses are
`
`based on Rogers' specific disclosures and a POSA's understanding of these
`
`disclosures as explained by the Fernald and Rogers Declarations. Petitioner,
`
`on the other hand, fails to consider Rogers' disclosures as a whole, arguing
`
`repeatedly that, because Rogers taught modifying the USB specification's
`
`supply voltage, a POSA would have felt unrestrained by the USB specification
`
`to also change the current supply limit and ignore the USB communication
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`protocols. Reply 1. But in making this argument, the Petitioner simply ignores
`
`the evidence presented by Patent Owner that a POSA would not have been
`
`motivated to modify Rogers:
`
`(1) to supply current in excess of the current limits using the "standard"
`
`USB connectors specified in Rogers, in light of Rogers' express desire to use a
`
`high voltage so as to keep current "as low as possible" (POR 30-31, 32-33);
`
`(2) to disregard USB communication protocols and forego the necessary
`
`enumeration process when Rogers specifically selected USB to allow its base
`
`unit "to communicate with the accessories" and "to facilitate future expansion
`
`selection" of the accessories (Ex. 1005, 10:59-62) (POR 36-38, 42); or
`
`(3) to disregard USB communication protocols and respond to a USB
`
`query with the forbidden SE1 signal when the overwhelming weight of
`
`evidence establishes that POSAs believed this would:
`
`• lead to damaged devices, and errors that are hard to isolate and
`
`correct (POR 44-45, 58-60);
`
`• lead to interference with normal communication (POR 44, 51-52, 57-
`
`58, 60-62); and
`
`• provide no advantage over the tested and known USB-compliant
`
`query-and-response procedures (POR 43, 53-56).
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`A. The Fernald and Rogers Declarations base their analysis on
`Rogers' disclosures as a whole
`Petitioner asserts that "Patent Owner seeks to improperly limit the
`
`teaching of the Rogers patent to a specific commercial embodiment that Mr.
`
`Rogers described in his declaration—but not in his patent." Reply 6; see also
`
`Reply 8-10. Petitioner is mistaken: Both the Fernald and Rogers Declarations
`
`explained, as experts are expected to do, how a POSA would have understood
`
`the Rogers' disclosures, but did not expand or modify the Rogers' disclosures.
`
`For example, Petitioner complains that the Rogers' inventor testified that "to
`
`ensure maximum compatibility with accessories and associated cables, the
`
`power supply system in the Rogers system was limited to the 500 mA of
`
`supply current." Reply 7. The context makes clear that the Rogers inventor
`
`was explaining how a POSA would have understood the effects on current
`
`limits given Rogers' stated objective of choosing the USB interface "for future
`
`expansion" of accessories and why changes to voltage would not affect this
`
`interoperability goal. Ex. 2012, ¶¶9-10, 15 & n.4; see also Ex. 2011, ¶46 (Dr.
`
`Fernald explaining that "to facilitate Rogers' objective of 'future expansion' of
`
`accessories and therefore interoperability with unknown USB devices, a POSA
`
`would have had a reason to follow . . . the USB specification's current limits,"
`
`e.g., because of the typical wires used and their current-carrying limit).
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`Petitioner next complains that Patent Owner "assume[s] that the Rogers
`
`patent's operator console is a USB-compliant bus-powered hub." Reply 7. The
`
`Fernald and Rogers Declarations both explain that a POSA would understand
`
`that because Rogers' "design is only described as deviating from the USB
`
`specification by having a 'dual-voltage' feature, the . . . operator console would
`
`comply with the USB specification" (except for supply voltage). Ex. 2012,
`
`¶16; Ex. 2011, ¶¶46, 80; POR 31. Further, because Rogers' operator console
`
`has both upstream facing and downstream facing ports and because it derives
`
`all its power from the USB connection, a POSA would understand it to be a
`
`bus-powered hub. POR 31; Ex. 2011, ¶¶80, 83 & n.7; Ex. 2012, ¶16;
`
`Ex. 1005, 11:4-7 (describing USB current limits applicable to bus-powered
`
`hubs), Figs. 8, 11-12. Petitioner provides no contrary evidence to show that
`
`these conclusions are wrong.
`
`B. Rogers' disclosure of a modified USB supply voltage does not
`suggest departure from unrelated aspects of the USB
`Specification
`Petitioner argues that Rogers' disclosure of a "modified USB interface"
`
`entitles it to imagine unrestrained modifications to the USB specification, even
`
`if the modifications are never expressly stated and would have conflicted with
`
`Rogers' stated objectives of interoperability. Reply 6-8, 13. As Dr. Fernald
`
`explained at his deposition, Rogers describes the "modified" USB interface
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`only in terms of modifying the voltage. Ex. 1015, 69:6-15. Petitioner provides
`
`no competent evidence that modifying one aspect of the USB specification in
`
`Rogers—supply voltage—would have motivated a POSA to modify other
`
`aspects of the USB specification, such as the current limits and the
`
`communication protocol.
`
`Indeed, Petitioner premises its obviousness theories on what a POSA
`
`allegedly could do. E.g., Reply 10 ("it would have been obvious to [a POSA]
`
`that they could supply current without regard[] to the USB current limits")
`
`(emphasis in original), Reply 14 ("These teachings would have at least
`
`suggested to [a POSA] that current could be supplied on VBUS . . . without
`
`enumeration") (emphasis added). But "obviousness concerns whether a skilled
`
`artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the
`
`. . . modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention." Belden, 805
`
`F.3d at 1073; see also Personal Web Techs., LL v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987,
`
`993-994 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (obviousness cannot be shown by merely asserting
`
`that the modification "would have allowed for" the patented feature, which is
`
`another way of stating that the references "could be combined").
`
`This is also not a case where Petitioner's new "obvious-to-try" theory
`
`applies. Reply 10, 14. "Obvious to try" requires a showing that "there [was] a
`
`design need[,] market pressure to solve a problem" or some other reason to
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`make that try and that "there [were] a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 421 (2007). Petitioner
`
`has not made the requisite showing as it fails to identify (1) what were the
`
`reasons to make the specific try, (2) why only a limited number of solutions
`
`existed, and (3) why the solutions were predictable with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success. The Board has previously rejected similar obvious-to-
`
`try arguments. See Sections V.C-V.E for discussions of Huawei-485, Huawei-
`
`465, and ZTE-215 decisions.
`
`Further, Patent Owner's experts explain why, in light of Rogers'
`
`objectives and the constraints at the time, a POSA would not have made the
`
`modifications. Ex. 2012, ¶¶9, 15 & n.4, 20; Ex. 2011, ¶¶46, 84-85, 100-101,
`
`109-126. For example, the Rogers inventor explained that a POSA would not
`
`have increased the current limits due to the properties of 4-wire USB cables
`
`used and Rogers' stated desire to interoperate with different accessories and to
`
`keep current "as low as possible." Ex. 2012, ¶¶9, 15 & n.4; Ex. 2011, ¶46;
`
`POR 30.1 As another example, far from being limited to a finite number of
`
`
`1 Moreover, because USB enumeration limits current request to 500mA
`
`but places no limits on voltages, (Ex. 1008-0294), increasing the current limit
`
`could also affect the communication protocol.
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`solutions, Rogers' query-and-response "can encompass numerous permutations
`
`of different data messages," including using different enumeration parameters.
`
`POR 53 & n.13; Ex. 2012, ¶¶25-26; Ex. 2011, ¶¶92-94. Dr. Fernald also
`
`testified about other ways to provision Rogers' high-power functions within the
`
`USB limits. Ex. 1015, 17:10-20. As yet another example, Dr. Fernald
`
`explained that there would be no reasonable expectation of success to use SE1
`
`for Rogers' query-and-response, leading to interruption of USB
`
`communication, damage to low-voltage devices, and errors that are difficult to
`
`correct. Ex. 2011, ¶¶109-126; POR 58-63. Petitioner does not rebut any of the
`
`above-mentioned evidence. Similarly, Dr. Fernald testified that enumeration is
`
`central to communication between Rogers' base unit and accessories.
`
`Ex. 2011, ¶46. Petitioner does not dispute this testimony or explain how,
`
`without USB enumeration, Rogers' base unit and accessories could
`
`communicate with each other via USB. In other words, Petitioner fails to
`
`demonstrate a reason to try the proposed modification.
`
`C. Rogers does not disclose or suggest disregarding the USB
`current limits (claims 1-2, 9-11 and 18)
`Petitioner asserts that Rogers "specifically criticized the USB current
`
`limits and suggested examples that would depart from those limits." Reply 6;
`
`see also Reply 10-12. Petitioner is wrong.
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`First, Rogers was concerned with USB's "limited capacity to provide
`
`power to a connected device." Ex. 1005, 10:67-11:2. Rogers does not criticize
`
`USB current limits. In fact, to increase the USB power capacity, Rogers
`
`proposed increasing supply voltage with a "dual-voltage accessory power
`
`system [that] allows the LAN telephone to alternatively supply power at 48
`
`VDC, instead of 5VDC, thus increasing the power consumption by a factor of
`
`10." Ex. 1005, 11:16-19. The Rogers and Fernald Declarations both explain
`
`that a POSA would understand this disclosure as disclosing increasing power
`
`by increasing supply voltage only. Ex. 2011, ¶¶62-63; Ex. 2012, ¶10; POR 24.
`
`Petitioner does not rebut this testimony with any evidence.
`
`Second, Rogers never discloses or suggests examples that depart from
`
`USB current limits. Petitioner's argument to the contrary assumes that the
`
`power demand at 5VDC and 48VDC would be the same such that at 5VDC,
`
`the base unit must supply more than 500mA of current to meet the power
`
`requirements. Reply 11-12. But Rogers discloses that the 5VDC-mode is the
`
`"low-power" mode and that an accessory's high-power functions are only
`
`enabled when 48VDC is present. Ex. 1005, 12:12-14, 12:38-40 ("If 48 VDC is
`
`present, then the accessory microprocessor 124 can enable functions that
`
`require higher power); POR 25-26; Ex. 2012, ¶17; Ex. 2011, ¶75. That is, a
`
`POSA would understand that at 5VDC, "the accessory operates in low-power
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`modes that do not require and do not draw much electrical energy." Ex. 2012,
`
`¶17. Petitioner provides no contrary evidence. Hence, even if Rogers "does
`
`not limit [its] accessory to operating in the 48V mode,"2 Rogers does not
`
`suggest supplying current in excess of 500mA at 5VDC (or 48V) because the
`
`5VDC-mode is the low-power mode which does not need all the extra power
`
`and current. Ex. 2012, ¶17; Ex. 2011, ¶75.
`
`The cited testimony by Dr. Fernald is not to the contrary: Dr. Fernald
`
`never testified that Rogers' accessories had the same power requirements in the
`
`5VDC and 48VDC modes. Ex. 1015, 27:15-20, 28:4-11, 60:16-61:6. Instead,
`
`Dr. Fernald explains that if the current demand by the device exceeds 500mA,
`
`"[t]he accessory simply wouldn't get the current it needed, and it would have to
`
`downgrade its function" and "that's how USB spec works." Id., 99:24-100:9.
`
`Although this testimony was given in the context of the 48VDC mode, the
`
`same applies to the 5VDC mode in which "functions that require higher power"
`
`are not enabled. Ex. 2011, ¶83; Ex. 1005 at 12:38-40 ("If 48 VDC is present,
`
`then the accessory microprocessor 124 can enable functions that require higher
`
`power."), 11:44-45 (5VDC is "default power setting"), 12:4-7 (reverting to
`
`
`2 Reply 12; see also Reply 11 (alleging that "Patent Owner . . . assumes
`
`the operator console works only in 48V mode").
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`5VDC when 48VDC accessory is removed). Petitioner provides no evidence
`
`that a POSA would have understood otherwise.
`
`Petitioner also argues that Rogers' disclosure of daisy-chained
`
`accessories suggested exceeding the USB current limits. Reply 12. To that
`
`end, it selectively cites certain parts of Dr. Fernald's testimony, but ignores
`
`other parts that explained how Rogers' system would actually operate.
`
`Ex. 1015, 98:24-100:13 (host would not allocate more than 500mA to the
`
`accessory; instead accessory would have to "downgrade its functions" to work
`
`within the limits); Ex. 2011, ¶¶79-83; POR 31-32.
`
`Petitioner criticizes Patent Owner for assuming that a POSA "necessarily
`
`would have hewed closely to the current limits . . . provided in the USB
`
`specification." Reply 7. But it presents no competent evidence that it would
`
`have been obvious for a POSA to try deviating from the USB current limits
`
`using a set-up like Rogers'. Indeed, the Board's findings in related proceedings
`
`apply equally here:
`
`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
`
`10623207
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`6 of Rogers). Amoni discloses increasing both voltage and
`current, but does so using an "auxiliary (or non-standard)" USB
`cab
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
