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 IPR2018-00461
`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
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
`USB Communication Protocol ............................................................... 1
`A. USB Architecture ......................................................................... 1
`B.
`Power Distribution ....................................................................... 2
`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 ................................................ 8
`B.
`IV. The Prior Art References Differ From The '550 Inventions ................ 10
`A.
`Rogers Overview ........................................................................ 10
`B.
`Shiga Overview .......................................................................... 13
`Skill Level of A POSA ......................................................................... 14
`V.
`VI. Claim Construction ............................................................................... 15
`A.
`"To Supply Current . . . Without Regard To At Least One
`Associated Condition Specified In A USB Specification" ........ 15
`"Supply Current . . . Without Regard To At Least One
`USB Specification Imposed Limit" ........................................... 17
`VII. The Board Should Deny the Petition under 325(d). ............................. 18
`VIII. The Petition Should Be Denied Because Petitioners Omit A
`Real Party In Interest. ........................................................................... 18
`
`B.
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`Page
`
`IX. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18 Are Not Rendered Obvious
`By Rogers ............................................................................................. 19
`A.
`Petitioner Fails To Present Competent Evidence That
`Rogers Discloses Or Renders Obvious An Adapter
`"Configured To Supply Current On The VBUS Line
`Without Regard To A At Least One Associated
`Condition Specified In A USB Specification" (Claim 1) .......... 19
`1.
`Supplying 48VDC (Voltage) Does Satisfy The
`Limitation "Supply Current Without Regard To At
`Least One Associated Condition Specified In A
`USB Specification" .......................................................... 19
`Rogers Does Not Teach Or Make Obvious
`Supplying Current In Excess Of 500mA ......................... 22
`a)
`Rogers Increases Power By Adjusting
`Voltage And Not Current ...................................... 22
`Petitioner Conflates the Current
`Consumption Internal to the Accessory
`Shown in Figure 7(b) with Current Supplied
`at VBUS pin in Figure 7(a) ................................... 25
`A POSA Would Have No Reason To
`Modify Rogers To Provide More Than
`500mA Of Current Across The VBUS Line ......... 27
`Rogers Does Not Teach Or Make Obvious An
`Adapter Configured To Supply Current On The
`VBUS Line Without Regard To The USB 2.0
`Specification's Condition That A Device May Not
`Consume 100mA Of Current Until Configured .............. 28
`Rogers Does Not Teach Or Make Obvious
`Supplying Current Without Regard To
`"Enumeration Conditions" Specified In A USB
`Specification .................................................................... 31
`
`2.
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Petitioners Fail To Present Competent Evidence That
`Rogers Discloses Or Renders Obvious An Adapter
`"Configured To Supply Current On The VBUS Line
`Without Regard To At Least One USB Specification
`Imposed Limit" (Claim 10) ........................................................ 36
`Petitioners Fail To Present Competent Evidence That
`Rogers Discloses Or Makes Obvious Challenged Claims
`2 Or 11 ........................................................................................ 37
`Petitioners Fail To Present Competent Evidence That
`Rogers Discloses Or Renders Obvious The Adapter Of
`Claims 2 Or 11, "Wherein Said Current Limit Is 500 Ma"
`(Claims 9, 18) ............................................................................. 37
`Petitioners Fail To Present Competent Evidence That
`Rogers Discloses Or Renders Obvious The Adapter Of
`Claims 1 Or 10, "Wherein Said Current Is Supplied
`Without USB Enumeration" (Claims 3, 12) .............................. 38
`X. Ground 2: The Petition Provides No Competent Evidence Of
`Motivation To Implement The Proposed Rogers/Shiga
`Combination, And Ignores That Doing So Would Result In An
`Inoperable System ................................................................................ 38
`A.
`The Petition Fails To Provide Any Substantiation For Its
`Assertion That A POSA Would Look To Shiga To Find
`A Way To Indicate To The Base Station That A
`Connected Device Is 48VDC Capable ....................................... 42
`1.
`Petitioners Fail To Explain Why A POSA Would
`Have Chosen SE1 Over Normal USB
`Communication Protocol ................................................. 44
`a)
`Rogers Uses Normal USB Protocols To
`Communicate The 48VDC Capability .................. 44
`The Petition Fails To Address POSA
`Concerns Regarding Consequences Of
`Employing An SE1 Signal To Communicate
`Information ............................................................ 47
`
`b)
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`No Prior Art References Teach The Use Of SE1 In
`Normal USB Communication .......................................... 50
`Absence Of Explicit Discouragement Of SE1 Is
`Not A Motivation To Use SE1 ........................................ 52
`Shiga Solves A Completely Different Problem
`And Does Not Suggest Using SE1 To Trigger
`Supply Of Excess Current By A Power Source .............. 52
`A POSA Would Believe That The Proposed Combination
`Would Lead To Detrimental Results Because The Base
`Unit Cannot Distinguish An SE1 Signal From A 48VDC
`Compliant Device And An SE1 Signal Generated In
`Error By A Non-48VDC Device ................................................ 54
`1.
`Scenario 1: A POSA Would Believe That
`Assuming SE1 Always Comes From A 48VDC
`Device Would Electrically Damage Low Voltage
`Devices And Lead To Errors That Are Difficult To
`Isolate ............................................................................... 56
`Scenario 2: A POSA Would Believe That
`Responding To SE1 In Accordance With The USB
`Specification Interrupts USB Communication ................ 59
`SE1 Signaling Provides No Advantage Over
`Normal USB Enumeration Process ................................. 62
`XI. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 62
`
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc.,
`234 F.3d 14 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................ 21
`Arendi SARL v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 20, 28, 52
`Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc.,
`427 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 21
`Canon Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG,
`IPR2016-01212, Paper No. 32 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2017) ............................ 31
`Cook Group Inc. v. Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00133 ............................................................................................. 42
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 42
`In re Gleave,
`560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 32
`Meiresonne v. Google, Inc.,
`849 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 42
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 29
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 42
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 55
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc.,
`192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................... 61
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ......................................................................................... 18
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00111
`
`IPR2018-00111
`US 8,624,550
`US 8,624,550
`
`Page
`Page
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 18
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 18
`
`10502302
`10502302
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`- V -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001
`
`Ex. 2002
`
`Ex. 2003
`Ex. 2004
`Ex. 2005
`
`Ex. 2006
`Ex. 2007
`
`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
`Defendant’s Corp. Disclosure Statement
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`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 uses
`
`abnormal USB signals for the transfer of significant amounts of current to USB
`
`devices in excess of the current limits set by a UBS specification and without
`
`the need for enumeration. Petitioners maintain 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 Petition 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. 1007-0017. 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.
`
`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.
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`
`
`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. 1008-0036. 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.
`
`
`
`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. VBUS carries
`
`a nominal voltage of about 5V. Ex. 1007-0033, 0158; Ex. 1008-0206. At the
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`time of the inventions, the USB specifications limited the amount of current
`
`that a device may draw to 500 milliamps (mA) after configuration and 100 mA
`
`before configuration. Ex. 1007-0158; Ex. 1008-0206. A USB 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. 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
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`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
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`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 would be available. Ex. 2003-6 & Ex. 2006-6
`
`(application communications occur 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. 13. This conclusory assertion contradicts the deposition testimony of
`
`Samsung's expert in the district court litigation—James Garney, who correctly
`
`acknowledged that an SE1 condition interferes with USB signaling because a
`
`USB port enters a "disconnect state" upon observing SE1.1 Ex. 2005, 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
`
`
`1 In systems described in the '550 patent, the devices and adapters
`recognize each other using an algorithm separate from USB 2.0 enumeration
`and therefore do not suffer from the problems encountered by Petitioners'
`attempt to shoehorn SE1 into the Rogers system. In the '550 patent system,
`signals that interfere with enumeration are viable implementations, and
`embodiments of the patent take this step.
`- 5 -
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`might be connected to it.").
`
`Mr. Garney's understanding is 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 "causes USB functions to be terminated." Ex. 1010, 7:40-46. In each of
`
`these examples, SE1 signaling is used in a context where USB communication
`
`is either not possible (Shiga and Kerai), disabled (Cypress), or to be disabled
`
`(Casebolt). Ex. 2001, ¶¶37-42.
`
`The Petition also suggests that, in Kerai, SE1 triggers charging. Pet. 14-
`
`15. But Kerai merely monitors data lines to harvest power whenever the
`
`voltage on a data line is above zero. Specially, Kerai teaches that in the
`
`embodiment associated with Figure 3:
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`[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, 5:48-53.
`
`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. Instead,
`
`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. See, 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 non-zero voltage could "hav[e] a detrimental effect on the data rate of the
`
`[USB] port." Ex. 1012, 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
`
`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.
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`
`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 common power sources such as
`
`AC outlets and DC car sockets were incompatible with the USB specification's
`
`requirement 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. 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 a few milliseconds, such as when a USB
`
`device was connected to an AC outlet or a DC 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
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`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
`
`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
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`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.
`
`IV. The Prior Art References Differ From The '550 Inventions
`As part of the analysis presented below, Fundamental has consulted with
`
`two experts in the field. The first is Dr. Kenneth Fernald, who has spent
`
`decades designing the power management infrastructure that employs the USB
`
`specification. The second expert is Mr. Steven A. Rogers, the author of the
`
`primary reference relied on by the Petition. The Rogers declaration explains the
`
`design of his system as described in his patent, and explains why POSAs like
`
`him did not and would not have deviated from normal USB communication
`
`protocols for his design.
`
`A. Rogers Overview
`Rogers involves a local area network ("LAN") with a "base unit." The
`
`base unit provides specified functionality such as a telephone handset, a
`
`speakerphone, and a status display. Ex. 1005, 4:13-15. The functionality of
`
`the base unit can be further expanded through connection to "a variety of
`
`accessory devices." Id., 4:20-23. Figure 1 shows an overview of Rogers' base
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`unit 6.
`
`
`
`Rogers teaches that the base unit derives its power via a LAN connector,
`
`as shown by the external power supply system in Figure 6. Ex. 1005, 10:21-
`
`24. In the preferred embodiment, the power is delivered to the base unit using
`
`direct current and 48 volts. Id., 10:26-27. Rogers states that 48 VDC is
`
`generally more convenient than lower voltages, because a high level of voltage
`
`allows "the current required [to be] as low as possible, for a given power
`
`level." Id., 10:29-32. For example, Rogers teaches that "at 48 VDC," a
`
`"conventional cable could deliver a maximum of 24 watts at 500 milliamps of
`
`current," as opposed to the 2.5W of power that could be delivered using
`
`500mA of current using 5 VDC. Id., 10:29-35, 11:3-7 (power transmitted at
`
`500mA and 5VDC is 2.5W). Rogers' base unit may make use of two power
`
`cables to provide a total of 48 watts, which "is more than enough to operate the
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`LAN telephone and attached accessories." Id., 10:35-38.
`
`Rogers' base unit can be attached to a variety of accessories, including
`
`"an operator console and an external speakerphone unit." Ex. 1005, 10:56-59.
`
`Rogers teaches that its "accessory system is designed for future expansion."
`
`Id., 10:59-60. "In order to facilitate the expansion selection, the LAN
`
`telephone uses the Universal Serial Bus (USB) to communicate with the
`
`accessories," as "USB is a relatively simple, fast . . ., and standardized bus used
`
`for computer devices." Id., 10:60-64. Rogers, however, explains that USB has
`
`"only a limited capability to provide power to a connected device," and thus
`
`Rogers' USB connection is "modified" to allow for supply of greater voltage
`
`and power to the accessories. Id., 10:64-11:7.
`
`Rogers teaches that the USB connection is modified to provide greater
`
`voltage to the accessories than available under normal USB, by providing
`
`voltage at "48 VDC, instead of 5 VDC." Id., 11:16-19; Ex. 2002, ¶10. This
`
`modification is accomplished through a "dual-voltage accessory power
`
`system," which allows USB devices to draw power at either 5V or 48V,
`
`depending on their capability. See 11:14-19, 11:44-56 (explaining that 5 VDC
`
`is supplied by default, and that supply is increased to 48 VDC after the
`
`accessory confirms that it is capable of receiving 48 VDC).
`
`Rogers only modifies the USB standard by modifying the supply voltage
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`across the USB connection—the supply current is not modified. Ex. 2002,
`
`¶¶7-10. For example, Rogers teaches that its modified system "suppl[ies]
`
`power at 48 VDC, instead of 5 VDC, thus increasing the power consumption
`
`by a factor of 10." Id., 11:16-19. Elsewhere, Rogers notes that "P=I*V where
`
`P=Power, I=Current, and V=Voltage." Id., 10:29-32. Given the relationship
`
`between power and voltage, a POSA would understand that the 10X increase in
`
`power resulted only from the 10X increase in voltages (from 5V to 48V) with
`
`no change in the maximum current. Ex. 2002, ¶10; Ex. 2001, ¶¶53-55, 65.
`
`B.
`Shiga Overview
`Shiga teaches a USB keyboard connected to a wake-up means that can
`
`wake the host computer from an "off state," in which the primary power supply
`
`of the computer is turned off. Ex. 1006, 1:11-19, 2:18-30. The keyboard
`
`receives power from a supplemental power supply inside the computer when
`
`the main power supply is off. Id., 2:31-42. When certain buttons on the
`
`keyboard are pressed, the keyboard sends a wake-up signal (such as a high
`
`voltage across the USB D+ and D- lines) to the wake-up means, causing the
`
`main power supply of the computer to turn on. Id., 3:40-55. In particular, at
`
`the time Shiga's keyboard signals the SE1 state to the computer, USB
`
`communication with the computer through the standard USB protocol is
`
`impossible because the data lines between the host and the USB keyboard "are
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`not connected to each other." Ex. 1006, 6:4-11. Instead, the USB keyboard's
`
`data lines are connected to a pair of comparators in the wake-up means 3. Id.,
`
`6:65-7:8, 2:50-58, 3:1-3. The comparators compare the voltage on the D+ and
`
`D- lines to a threshold voltage and output the determination to an AND circuit,
`
`which then outputs a signal to turn on the main power supply. Id., 7:9-15.
`
`Only then are the data lines between the host computer and USB keyboard
`
`reconnected. Id., 7:16-30, 2:59-65, 3:3-7. Hence, at the time that USB
`
`keyboard transmits the SE1 signal, there is no risk of interfering with the host's
`
`normal USB communication, because the keyboard's data lines are
`
`disconnected from the host at the time. Ex. 1006, 6:4-11, 6:65-7:15; Ex. 2001,
`
`¶¶37-38.
`
`Thus, Shiga never suggests that SE1 should be used when a host is
`
`conducting normal USB communication with the connected USB device.
`
`Indeed, the USB specification specifically cautions that "[l]ow-speed and full-
`
`speed USB drivers must never 'intentionally' generate an SE1 on the bus." Ex.
`
`1008-0151.
`
`V.
`
`Skill Level of A POSA
`Petitioners' skill level is too high. This is demonstrated by the fact that
`
`Mr. Rogers, the sole inventor of the primary reference, has only a bachelor's
`
`degree. Ex. 2002, ¶4. But the Petition has no reasonable likelihood of success
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`even under this higher skill level. Ex. 2001, ¶10 (Dr. Fernald applying
`
`Petitioners' skill level in his analysis).
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`A.
`"To Supply Current . . . Without Regard To At Least One
`Associated Condition Specified In A USB Specification"
`Claim 1 recites an adapter that is "configured to supply current on the
`
`VBUS line without regard to at least one associated condition specified in a
`
`USB specification." The use of the terms "without regard to" and "associated
`
`condition" in the claim language refers back to the phrase "supply current on
`
`the VBUS line." As a result, this claim limitation means a condition associated
`
`with the supply of current on the VBUS line.
`
`There are a number of conditions associated with current supply, e.g.,
`
`the amount, direction, or manner in which current is supplied. Ex. 2001, ¶44.
`
`An example of such an "associated condition," as set forth in the '550 patent, is
`
`"a current limit." Ex. 1001, Claim 2; Ex. 2001, ¶44. Another example, as
`
`Petitioners assert in IPR2018-00460, is the direction of the flow of current,
`
`because the USB 2.0 specification states that "[n]o device shall supply (source)
`
`current on Vbus at its upstream facing port at any time." IPR2018-00460,
`
`Paper 1 at 33. These conditions relate to the manner in which current is
`
`supplied across the VBUS line. Ex. 2001, ¶44.
`
`A condition associated with current supply, however, is distinct from a
`
`10502302
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00461
`US 8,624,550
`
`condition associated with supplying voltage, such as a voltage limit. This
`
`understanding is confirmed by the Patent. For example, in describing the
`
`nature of the invention, the '550 patent teaches that it provides a means of
`
`overcoming the specific requirements relating to enumeration and current
`
`supply of the prior art:
`
`The USB specification specifies a process for transferring energy
`across the USB called enumeration and limits the electrical
`current that can flow across the USB.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:17-26.
`
`That a condition "associated" with current supply differs from voltage
`
`suppl