`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`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 IPR2018-00460
`Patent No. 8,624,550
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
`USB Communication Protocol ............................................................... 1
`A. USB Architecture ......................................................................... 2
`B.
`Power Distribution ....................................................................... 3
`C.
`Enumeration To Establish Communication Between Host
`And Device ................................................................................... 3
`Single Ended 1 (“SE1”) Line State .............................................. 5
`D.
`III. The ’550 Patent Presents An Elegant Solution To A Complex
`Problem ................................................................................................... 7
`A. Need For Enumeration Limits Power Sources Suitable
`For Charging A USB Device ....................................................... 8
`Parts Of The ’550 Patent Solution ............................................... 9
`B.
`IV. The Prior Art References Differ From The ’550 Inventions ................ 11
`A. Dougherty Overview .................................................................. 11
`1.
`Dougherty’s Docking Station .......................................... 11
`2.
`Dougherty’s Alleged Improvement Over Prior Art ......... 13
`3.
`Dougherty’s Docking Station Logic ................................ 15
`a)
`First Stage Of Operational Mode:
`Enumeration Using Normal USB Protocol ........... 15
`Second Stage Of Operational Mode:
`Loading Device Driver Using Information
`Obtained During Handshaking .............................. 16
`Third Stage Of Operational Mode: Docking
`Station Initiated Inquiry Of Laptop’s Power
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`Page
`
`d)
`
`Sink Ability Via Power Supply Lines And
`Supply Of Power ................................................... 18
`Dead Battery Or No Battery Scenario:
`Communication Only Via Power Supply
`Line ........................................................................ 18
`Shiga Overview .......................................................................... 19
`B.
`Skill Level Of A POSA ........................................................................ 20
`V.
`VI. The Board Should Deny the Petition under 325(d). ............................. 20
`VII. Ground 1: Claims 1-3 And 9-12, And 18 Are Not Anticipated
`By Dougherty ....................................................................................... 21
`A.
`Petitioners Fail To Present Competent Evidence That
`Dougherty Discloses An Adapter That Is Both
`“Configured To Supply Current On The VBUS Line
`Without Regard To At Least One USB Specification
`Imposed Limit” And “Without Enumeration” (Claim 12) ........ 21
`1.
`Enumeration Takes Place Before Power Supply By
`The Docking Station In The Charged Battery
`Scenario............................................................................ 22
`Petitioners Have Failed To Show That The
`Docking Station Supplies More Than 500 mA To
`The Laptop In The Dead Battery Scenario. ..................... 28
`Petitioners Fail To Present Competent Evidence That
`Dougherty Discloses “An Adapter Comprising . . . A
`USB Communication Path” (All Claims) .................................. 30
`VIII. Ground 2: Claims 4-8 And 13-17 Are Not Obvious Over
`Dougherty In View Of Shiga ................................................................ 34
`A.
`The Proposed Combination Suffers From The Same
`Defect As The Analysis Presented In Ground 1 ........................ 34
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Petition Fails To Provide Any Competent Factual
`Basis For Its Assertion Of A Motivation To Combine
`Dougherty/Shiga ........................................................................ 34
`1.
`Petitioners Fail To Present Competent Evidence
`That A POSA Would Recognize SE1 As An
`Appropriate Signal When Normal USB
`Communication Is Involved ............................................ 39
`A POSA Would Conclude That The Proposed
`Combination Had No Reasonable Expectation of
`Success ............................................................................. 42
`a)
`A POSA Would Believe That Dougherty’s
`Laptop Would Not Be Able To Send SE1
`Signaling Under Normal USB Protocol ................ 42
`A POSA Would Conclude That The
`Petition’s Proposed Combinations Are Still
`Inoperative If The Laptop Is Programed To
`Respond To An SE1 Signal ................................... 44
`Petitioners Fail to Provide A Reasoned
`Explanation As To Why A POSA Would Have
`Chosen SE1 Over Other Alternatives In The
`Dougherty System ............................................................ 48
`A POSA Would Believe That Making The
`Suggested Modifications Would Disable The
`Dougherty Docking Station’s Primary
`Functionality .................................................................... 50
`a)
`Dougherty’s Docking Station Expands Ports
`And Requires Normal USB Communication
`With The Laptop .................................................... 50
`Dougherty’s Handshaking Process Is
`Necessary To Establish Communication ............... 52
`
`b)
`
`b)
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`Page
`
`5.
`
`6.
`7.
`
`8.
`
`The Proposed Combinations Would Add
`Complexity Because A POSA Would Believe The
`Docking Station And The Laptop Must Use
`Different Signaling Schemes For The Operational
`State And The Off State ................................................... 54
`Shiga Is Not Analogous Art To The ’550 Patent ............ 56
`The Second Combination Has Additional
`Drawbacks ....................................................................... 60
`The Petition Fails To Provide A Reasoned
`Explanation Of Motivation For Its Proposed
`Combinations ................................................................... 61
`a)
`The Combinations Would Not Reduce
`Dougherty’s System Latency Or Decrease
`Its Complexity ....................................................... 62
`Petitioners Offered No Evidence That SE1
`Signaling Is A Logical Choice .............................. 64
`Dougherty Discourages Modification Of
`USB Communication Protocol .............................. 66
`IX. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 67
`
`
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 34
`CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp.,
`504 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 31
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ...................................................................... 58
`Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................... 23
`Cook Group Inc. v. Boston Scimed, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00133 (May 3, 2017) ..................................................................... 56
`Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l. Corp.,
`323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 30
`In re Gleave,
`560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 23
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed.Cir.1984) ............................................................ 39, 53, 66
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 57, 58
`NetMoney In, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 ............................................................................................... 29
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...................................................................... 29
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................. 37, 42, 46, 64
`
`10489488.
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00110
`US 8,624,550
`
`Page
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 57
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ......................................................................................... 1, 20
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ......................................................................................... 23, 64
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................. 33
`
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001
`
`Ex. 2002
`Ex. 2003
`Ex. 2004
`Ex. 2005
`
`Ex. 2006
`Ex. 2007
`Ex. 2008
`Ex. 2009
`
`Ex. 2010
`
`Ex. 2011
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Declaration of Kenneth Fernald, Ph.D. in Support of
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC’s Patent
`Owner Preliminary Response
`-intentionally omitted-
`Jan Axelson, USB Complete (1999), excerpt
`U.S. Patent No. 5,884,086 (“Amoni”)
`Deposition Transcript of John Garney (Nov. 20, 2017) in
`Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int’l LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co. (E.D. Tex.), excerpt
`Jan Axelson, USB Complete (2d ed. 2001), excerpt
`Donald Spencer, Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1993), p. 169
`U.S. Patent No. 6,326,771
`Linear Technology Corp., A Miniature, Low Dropout Battery
`Charger for Lithium-Ion Batteries (2000)
`USB 2.0 Specification Engineering Change Notice (ECN) #1:
`Mini-B Connector (2000), excerpt
`John Hyde, USB Design by Example (1999), excerpt
`
`10489488.
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550, entitled “Multi-Functional Charging System
`
`and Method” (the “’550 Patent”), is directed to a novel USB adapter that use
`
`abnormal USB signals for the transfer of significant amounts of current to
`
`USB devices in excess of the current limits set by a USB specification and
`
`without the need for enumeration. Petitioner maintains that enumeration is “a
`
`host-initiated process that a USB device must undergo before it can
`
`communicate data over the USB interface.” Pet. 17. The Board should deny
`
`this petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314 and 325(d) because it advances the same
`
`arguments as ZTE and Samsung did in IPR2018-00110 and does not present a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail as to any challenged claim.
`
`II. USB Communication Protocol
`Universal Serial Bus (“USB) was developed to address issues related to
`
`“connectivity for the PC architecture.” Ex. 1007-0001, 17. USB was designed
`
`to allow for plug-and-play and expandable bidirectional communication
`
`channels. Id. at -0017. To accommodate this goal, USB developed
`
`architecture, power distribution, and communication protocols, as explained in
`
`the subsections below.
`
`10489488.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`A. USB Architecture
`USB employs a tiered-star topology as shown below that permits up to
`
`127 unique devices to be connected to a single host. Id. at -0032, -0029; Ex.
`
`1008-0041.
`
`
`
`In this architecture, a host, such as a PC, has an integrated “Root Hub”
`
`that provides one or more attachment points for a hub. Ex. 1008-0041. An
`
`example of a hub is shown below (Ex. 1008-0051, Ex 1007-0038). Either a
`
`USB device (a “Node” shown in the figure above) or another hub may be
`
`connected to a hub. Ex. 1008-0041.
`
`
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`B.
`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 functions. A USB host
`
`and connected device negotiate for power allocation so that sufficient power
`
`can be allocated to the devices without overdrawing power from the host. Ex.
`
`1007-0195, Ex. 1008-0200-02, 0271-72.
`
`C. Enumeration To Establish Communication Between Host And
`Device
`As noted above, USB is designed to support interoperability and port
`
`expansion (that is, multiple devices can communicate with a host through a
`
`single port). In many circumstances, an attached device also draws power from
`
`its connected USB port for its operation. USB technology provides for the
`
`above needs with a handshaking protocol called enumeration by which the
`
`host can identify, address and configure each peripheral device. Ex. 1007-
`
`0036, 0195; Ex. 1008-0048, 0200-02, 0271-72 (enumeration process).
`
`Petitioner maintains that enumeration is “a host-initiated process that a USB
`
`device must undergo before it can communicate data over the USB
`
`interface.” Pet. at 17; see also Ex. 2003-9 (“Enumeration is the initial
`
`exchange of information that enables the host’s device driver to communicate
`
`with the device.”).
`
`At the time of the inventions, when a USB device was plugged into a
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`host, the device would pull one of the D+ or D- lines to a voltage above 2.0V.
`
`Ex. 1007-0129, 0158; Ex 1008-0169, 0206. With the rise of the voltage on
`
`either the D+ or D- lines (but not both), the host would become aware that a
`
`device had been plugged into a USB port. Ex. 1008-0177-79. To initiate the
`
`communication with the device, the host would first reset the device to its
`
`default state. Ex. 1008-0270-72; Ex. 1007-0195. The host would disable the
`
`port and prevent data from being sent downstream from the port to the device
`
`until this reset step was performed. Id.
`
`Until a unique address was assigned to the device, the device would use
`
`the default address 0 to respond to the host. Id. The host would read the
`
`device’s descriptor via a “Get_Descriptor” request to find out the maximum
`
`packet size that the device would use. Id.; Ex. 2003-12; Ex. 2006-17. The host
`
`would assign a unique address after completing this query to the device. Ex.
`
`1007-0195; Ex. 1008-0271; Ex. 2003-12 & -13; Ex. 2006-17.
`
`The host would then query the device for as many details as it needed to
`
`configure the device, again via a “Get_Descriptor” request. Id. The host
`
`would then assign a configuration value to the device. Id. The device would
`
`then be considered “configured,” and could draw the amount of power
`
`allocated in the selected configuration. Id. Before then, the device could draw
`
`at most 100 mA of current. Ex. 1007-0158; Ex. 1008-0206. Until the device
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`was configured, the device could only respond to standard requests, and thus
`
`none of the device-specific requests generally needed in order to operate a
`
`connected USB device available. Ex. 2003-6 & Ex. 2006-6 (application
`
`communication occurs after enumeration); Ex. 2001, ¶30. After the device was
`
`configured through the enumeration process, the device could send and receive
`
`operational data over the D+ and D- lines in accordance with the USB
`
`specification. Id.
`
`D.
`Single Ended 1 (“SE1”) Line State
`Petitioners suggest that the “SE1 condition would be a logical choice for
`
`signaling information about a device without interfering with USB signaling.”
`
`Pet. 11.1 Samsung’s expert in the district court litigation— James Garney,
`
`correctly acknowledged that an SE1 condition interferes with USB signaling
`
`because a USB port enters a “disconnect state” upon observing SE1. Ex. 2005,
`
`
`1 In systems described in the ’550 patent, the devices and adapters
`
`recognize each other using an algorithm separate from USB enumeration and
`
`therefore do not suffer from the problems encountered by Petitioners’ attempt
`
`to shoehorn SE1 into the Dougherty system. In the ’550 patent system, signals
`
`that interfere with enumeration are viable implementations, and embodiments
`
`of the patent take this step.
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`261:6-22 (“. . . no more data signaling would be delivered across that
`
`communication—across that connection between the hub and the attached
`
`device or hub that might be connected to it.”).
`
`Mr. Garney’s understanding is further confirmed by Petitioners’ prior art
`
`references, none of which actually discloses transmitting an SE1 signal on
`
`USB data lines that were transmitting or would continue to transmit standard
`
`USB communications. For example, in Shiga, SE1 is sent as a wake up signal
`
`to a wake-up means and not to the USB lines on the host computer. Ex. 1006,
`
`3:1-9, 6:8-12, 7:16-30 (the signal lines of the USB keyboard that sends SE1 are
`
`“not connected” to the signal lines of the host when SE1 is sent). Similarly,
`
`Kerai teaches that an SE1 state would only occur when the USB connection is
`
`“inactive.” Ex. 1012, 5:43-48. Likewise, Cypress expressly states that an SE1
`
`signal is only sent when USB is “disabled.” Ex. 1011 at 24. Casebolt’s SE1
`
`signal likewise “causes USB functions to be terminated.” Ex. 1010, 7:40-46.
`
`In each example, SE1 is used in a context where normal USB communication
`
`is either not possible (Shiga and Kerai), disabled (Cypress), or to be disabled
`
`(Casebolt). Further, none of the examples uses SE1 to turn off power supply to
`
`a connected USB device as suggested by Petitioners. Ex. 1006, Ex. 1010-
`
`1012; Ex. 2001, ¶¶37-42.
`
`The Petition also suggests that Kerai’s SE1 triggers USB charging. Pet.
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`14-15. But Kerai merely monitors data lines to harvest power whenever a data
`
`line has a positive voltage. Specially, Kerai teaches that in the embodiment
`
`associated with Figure 3:
`
`[E]ach logic detector 50 detects the state of a corresponding line
`25, 26 and, where the state is found to be high, permits current to
`flow into a corresponding capacitor 51. The output from each
`capacitor 50 supplies the charging terminal 52 which is connected
`to the battery charging circuit 19. Ex. 1012, 5:47-53.
`
`In other words, Kerai’s battery receives power whenever either D+ or D-
`
`(line 25 or 26) is held high. Id.; Ex. 2001, ¶39. Charging does not require an
`
`SE1 condition where D+ and D- are held high simultaneously. Id. Rather,
`
`charging occurs even when the D+ and D- lines act as a differential data pair
`
`with one line being held high and the other held low. Ex. 1012, 3:30-33
`
`(conductors 25 and 26 “carry differential data signals D- and D+ . . . .”); Ex.
`
`2001, ¶39. Moreover, Kerai warns that drawing power whenever the data line
`
`has a positive voltage could “hav[e] a detrimental effect on the data rate of the
`
`[USB] port.” Ex. 1012 at 5:56-59; ; Ex. 2001, ¶39 n.1.
`
`III. The ’550 Patent Presents An Elegant Solution To A Complex
`Problem
`The ’550 patent stems from pioneering research performed by the power
`
`supply and distribution group at Research in Motion Ltd. (“RIM,” now
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`Blackberry Ltd.), as part of RIM’s effort to build the world’s first mobile
`
`device with a combined USB data and charging port. The sections below will
`
`first describe problems faced by the RIM researchers and then the elegant
`
`solutions they offered.
`
`A. Need For Enumeration Limits Power Sources Suitable For
`Charging A USB Device
`In the early 2000s, Blackberry launched a project to design a mobile
`
`device with a combined power and data interface. A combined charging and
`
`data interface would reduce the number of external connections and simplify
`
`printed circuit board designs for a smaller and thinner phone.
`
`The inventors noted, “[a]lthough the USB interface can be used as a
`
`power interface, the USB is typically not used for that purpose by mobile
`
`devices.” Ex. 1001, 2:1-3. This was because the USB specification requires
`
`that “a USB device participate in a host-initiated process called enumeration in
`
`order to be compliant with the current USB specification in drawing power
`
`from the USB interface.” Id., 2:3-15. But common power sources such as AC
`
`outlets and DC car sockets, having no required software or hardware, simply
`
`could not participate in such enumeration processes. Id. Moreover, under the
`
`USB specification, a device would go into a Suspended state and draw
`
`negligible amount of current after observing no bus activity for three
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`milliseconds, such as when a USB device was connected to an AC outlet or a
`
`car socket. Id., 10:11-15; Ex. 1008-00182, 0206, 271.
`
`B.
`Parts Of The ’550 Patent Solution
`Faced with this challenge, the inventors designed a new “USB power
`
`adapter that [could] provide power to a USB device without necessarily
`
`requiring that the USB device participate in enumeration . . . .” and “a method
`
`that [could] allow a USB device to differentiate between the provided USB
`
`power adapter and traditional USB power sources such as hosts and hubs.” Ex.
`
`1004-0006, 3:9-14.
`
`In certain embodiments, to achieve the above results, the inventors
`
`incorporated an identification subsystem into the adapter to output an
`
`identification signal. An “identification signal could be the communication of
`
`a single voltage on one or more of the USB data lines, different voltages on the
`
`two data lines, a series of pulses or voltage level changes, or other types of
`
`electrical signals.” Ex. 1001,8:29-33.
`
`The identification signal serves to inform a mobile device, for example,
`
`that it is coupled to a USB adapter of the inventions, that the connected power
`
`source “is not a USB limited source,” and/or that the device “can now draw
`
`power without regard to the USB specification and the USB specification
`
`imposed limits.” Id., 8:21-29. One example of such disregard of the USB
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`specification imposed limits is allowing the device to draw more than 100 mA
`
`of current (e.g., 500 mA) from a non-USB power source (such as an AC outlet
`
`or a DC car socket) without enumeration. E.g., id.. at 9:65-10:3.
`
`The patent also teaches that an identification signal may be observed “by
`
`detecting the presence of an abnormal data line condition at the USB port,” and
`
`that one preferred identification signal “results from the application of voltage
`
`signals greater than 2 volts to both the D+ and D- lines in [a] USB connector.”
`
`Id. at 9:20-28. Certain dependent claims of the ’550 patent claim these specific
`
`examples. E.g., claims 4, 6-8, 13, 15-17.
`
`Annotated Figure 2 below illustrates a USB communication path
`
`(colored green) in the adapter that allows for the identification subsystem (108)
`
`to pass identification signals, such as abnormal data conditions or signals, to
`
`the USB connector 102 on the adapter side.
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`
`IV. The Prior Art References Differ From The ’550 Inventions
`As part of the analysis presented below, Fundamental has consulted with
`
`Dr. Kenneth Fernald. Dr. Fernald has spent decades actually designing the
`
`power management infrastructure that employs the USB specification.
`
`A. Dougherty Overview
`1.
`Dougherty’s Docking Station
`Dougherty’s docking station is used to “expand the capabilities of a
`
`laptop computer to include a full size keyboard, a full size monitor, more serial
`
`ports, and other functionality typically associated only with desktop computing
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`devices.” Ex. 1005, 1:61-67. One way to achieve this expansion is via “port
`
`replication across a USB port.” Id., 2:24-25. Port expansion means “by
`
`plugging the laptop into [a] docking station, more serial . . . ports are available
`
`for connection to printers, scanners, full size display devices, . . . pointing
`
`devices and the like.” Id., 2:16-20. Hence, docking a laptop in a docking
`
`station via a USB connection generates “plurality of communication ports” for
`
`access to printers, scanners, displays, mice and other peripheral devices. Id.,
`
`2:25-28.
`
`USB-based docking stations allegedly had the drawback of “requir[ing]
`
`the user to separately apply power to the laptop” with a power adapter such as
`
`an AC/DC power converter connected to the laptop. Id., 2:43-45. Dougherty’s
`
`docking station allegedly overcame this shortcoming and presented “a USB
`
`based docking station that has the capability of both operating the laptop
`
`computer and charging the battery in the laptop computer while docked
`
`without the need to plug in a separate power connection . . . .” Id., 2:45-50.
`
`Dougherty teaches that the primary reason for docking a laptop is to
`
`allow it to access the full functionality available to a desktop computer. E.g.,
`
`id., 1:61-67 (“Docking . . . may expand the capabilities of the laptop computer
`
`to include . . . functionality typically associated only with desktop computing
`
`devices.”), 2:9-17 (using port replication to make more ports “available for
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`connection to printers, scanners, full size display devices . . . and the like”).
`
`Dougherty also acknowledges that to support USB-based port expansion,
`
`the laptop and docking station must be able to communicate with each other
`
`via USB protocols in order to operate peripheral USB devices connected to the
`
`USB based docking station. Id., 2:23-32 (“[a] user connects a laptop, via a
`
`USB connection, to a port replication device which generates plurality of
`
`communication ports,” and “port replication is accomplished across the USB
`
`connector”), 2:38-39 (“USB expansion connection”); Ex. 2001, ¶48. For this
`
`reason, Dougherty’s “laptop computer 100 of the preferred embodiment does
`
`not modify operation of the serial communication conductors 126 of the USB
`
`protocol.” Id. at 4:67-5:3. Petitioners state that Dougherty’s serial
`
`communication conductors 126 correspond to “D+ and D- lines of a standard
`
`USB cable.” Pet. 28.
`
`2.
`Dougherty’s Alleged Improvement Over Prior Art
`As noted above, Dougherty allegedly improves prior art USB-based
`
`docking stations by allowing the docking station to provide power to the laptop
`
`using the USB connection, rather than a separate power adapter, while at the
`
`same time maintaining the ability to communicate over USB that is the purpose
`
`of the USB docking station. Ex. 1005, 2:45-50 (“it would be desirable to have
`
`a USB based docking station that has the capability of both operating the
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`laptop computer and charging the batteries in the laptop computer while
`
`docked without the need to plug in a separate power connection”); see also,
`
`e.g., 2:55-58 (“The problems noted above are solved in large part by a laptop
`
`computer and related docking station adapted to supply power from the
`
`docking station to the laptop computer across the USB connection.”).
`
`Dougherty’s docking station is designed to supply power at up to 18V
`
`and 2.5A when the laptop is in full operation over the VBUS and GND power
`
`lines. Id. at 7:20-55. Dougherty teaches the use of the VBUS and GND lines to
`
`send the communications necessary “to establish whether laptop computer [] is
`
`capable of receiving power from the docking station.” Ex. 1005, 5:3-7. This
`
`communication takes place after a handshaking (or enumeration) process under
`
`“normal USB protocols.” Id., 5:39-6:17. Dougherty teaches that the USB
`
`communication lines maintain their standard operation:
`
`Referring to FIG. 1, the laptop computer 100 of the preferred
`embodiment does not modify operation of the serial
`communication conductors 126 of the USB protocol.
`
`Ex. 1005, 4:67-5-7; see also id. at 6:13-18 & Fig. 1 (explaining that docking
`
`logic 134 is coupled to the power lines 138, not the communication lines 126).
`
`
`
`There is no disclosure or discussion of using the USB communication
`
`lines (D+ and D-) to send abnormal USB data signals for purposes of
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`identifying power source or drawing current without regard to limitations
`
`imposed by the USB Specification. This is not an accident. Those lines need
`
`to be used for USB communication.
`
`3.
`Dougherty’s Docking Station Logic
`Dougherty applies docking station logic in two separate scenarios: 1)
`
`where the laptop is already operational before connection to the docking
`
`station, and 2) where the laptop is nonoperational upon connection to the
`
`docking station.
`
`a)
`
`First Stage Of Operational Mode: Enumeration
`Using Normal USB Protocol
`In the “operational” scenario, Dougherty teaches a multi-step process
`
`when the docking station is connected to the laptop via a USB cable. The first
`
`step is to engage in a “normal USB protocol,” which “requires a series of USB
`
`handshaking protocols to identify both the . . . laptop computer 100, and . . . the
`
`docking station 200.” Ex. 1005, 5:38-43. The handshaking protocol to
`
`“identify” the host and the docking station is enumeration as described in the
`
`USB specification, which is a process used by the host to “to identify and
`
`manage the device state changes necessary.” Ex. 1008-0271; Ex. 2001, ¶49.
`
`To suggest that Dougherty is not performing enumeration via this step would
`
`mean that its USB-docking expander is unable to perform its primary role as a
`
`USB hub expander, because enumeration is the basic threshold element to
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`allow a hub to communicate with additional USB devices. Ex. 1008-0271
`
`(“Before a USB device’s function may be used, the device must be
`
`configured”); -0271-72 (configuration is the last step of enumeration); Ex.
`
`2003-9 (device only start data transfer after configuration); Ex. 2003-6 & Ex.
`
`2006-6 (application communications occur after enumeration); Ex. 2001, ¶¶62-
`
`63. A detailed description of the steps involved in an enumeration process, per
`
`the USB 2.0 specification, is described in Section II.C above.
`
`b)
`
`Second Stage Of Operational Mode: Loading
`Device Driver Using Information Obtained
`During Handshaking
`The second step of the Dougherty’s docking station logic is for the
`
`laptop to load a driver that contains a command that the laptop shut off its VBUS
`
`supply voltage to the docking station. Ex. 1005, 5:53-58. Loading of a driver
`
`associated with an identified peripheral device is dependent on the information
`
`obtained during the enumeration process of step 1. See Ex. 2005, 37:1-38:6
`
`(“subsequent to getting the configuration descriptor [in the enumeration
`
`process], the hub driver would be involved with determining what device
`
`driver would be required to control the device and . . . loading a device driver
`
`to enable the correct device driver to be present”); Ex. 1008-0273 (Class,
`
`SubClass, and Protocol fields from the device descriptor that is read during
`
`enumeration are used to support “adaptive device drivers”); -0290-91 (Class,
`
`10489488
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00460
`US 8,624,550
`
`SubClass, and Protocol fields are part of a standard device descriptor); -0270
`
`(explaining that the device descriptor is read during enumeration)..
`
`Enumeration is such an essential condition of driver loading that
`
`handbooks actually describe driver loading as part of the enumeration process.
`
`See Ex. 2003-11 to -15 (e.g., steps 10 and 11); Ex. 2006-14 to 2006-19 (steps
`
`11 and 12). USB 2.0 also describes device driver loading as part of the device
`
`configuration step of the enumeration process. Compare Ex. 1008-0311, -0313
`
`(“The configuring software first reads the devi