UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,624,550
`Case IPR No.: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOHN LEVY.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................................... 2
`II.
`SCOPE OF OPINION .................................................................................... 6
`III.
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED ....................................... 7
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 7
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF VALIDITY ......................................................... 9
`VII. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,624,550 (“’550 patent”) (Ex.
`1001) ............................................................................................................. 12
`Prosecution History ............................................................................ 14
`Priority Date ....................................................................................... 14
`Claim Construction............................................................................. 15
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES .................................. 17
`Background and History of USB Technology ................................... 17
`USB 2.0 (Ex. 1007) ............................................................................ 19
`Use of SE1 State in Various Contexts ................................................ 25
`1.
`Shiga (Ex. 1009) ...................................................................... 25
`2.
`Zyskowski (Ex. 1012) .............................................................. 28
`3.
`Casebolt (Ex. 1013).................................................................. 28
`4.
`Cypress Semiconductor ........................................................... 29
`5.
`Kerai (Ex. 1015) ....................................................................... 30
`Theobald (Ex. 1006) ........................................................................... 31
` Matsumoto (Ex. 1008) ........................................................................ 35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– i –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`Dougherty (Ex. 1010) ......................................................................... 38
`1.
`“charged battery scenario” ....................................................... 40
`2.
`“dead battery scenario” ............................................................ 41
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE .................................................. 42
` Ground 1: Theobald and USB 2.0, in Combination, Renders
`Claims 1-2, 9-11, and 18 Obvious...................................................... 42
`1.
`Application of the Combination of Theobald and USB
`2.0 to Claims 1-2, 9-11, and 18 ................................................ 43
`The Theobald/USB 2.0 Combination ...................................... 49
`2.
`Ground 2: Theobald, USB 2.0, and Matsumoto, in
`Combination, Render Claims 3 and 12 Obvious ................................ 53
`1.
`Application of the Combination of Theobald, USB 2.0,
`and Matsumoto to Claims 3 and 12 ......................................... 54
`The Theobald/USB 2.0/Matsumoto Combination ................... 55
`2.
`Ground 3: Theobald, USB 2.0 and Shiga, in Combination,
`Render Claims 4-8 and 13-17 Obvious .............................................. 57
`1.
`Application of the Combination of Theobald, USB 2.0,
`and Shiga to Claims 4-8 and 13-17 .......................................... 58
`The Theobald/USB 2.0/Shiga Combination ............................ 64
`2.
` Ground 4: Dougherty Renders Claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18
`Obvious............................................................................................... 67
`1.
`Application of Dougherty to Claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18. .......... 67
`2.
`Dougherty is Analogous Art .................................................... 76
`Ground 5: Dougherty and Shiga, in Combination, Render
`Claims 4-8 and 13-17 Obvious........................................................... 77
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– ii –
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`1.
`
`Application of the Combination of Dougherty and Shiga
`to Claims 4-8 and 13-17 ........................................................... 78
`The Dougherty/Shiga Combination ......................................... 84
`2.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 91
`
`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`
`X.
`
`
`– iii –
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`1. My name is John Levy, and I have been retained by counsel for
`
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. (“Huawei” or “Petitioner”) as an expert witness in
`
`support of Huawei’s petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) and cancellation of
`
`claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 (“’550 patent”) (Ex. 1001), which I
`
`understand has been assigned to Fundamental Innovation Systems International
`
`LLC (“FISI” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`2. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. The
`
`materials that I studied for this declaration include all exhibits of the petition.
`
`3.
`
`I may rely upon these materials, my knowledge and experience,
`
`and/or additional materials to rebut arguments raised by the patent owner. Further,
`
`I may also consider additional documents and information in forming any
`
`necessary opinions, including documents that may not yet have been provided to
`
`me.
`
`4. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated $575 per hour for my time spent working on
`
`issues in this case. I have no financial interest in, or affiliation with, the Petitioner,
`
`real parties-in-interest, or the Patent Owner. My compensation is not dependent
`
`upon the outcome of, or my testimony in, the present IPR or any litigation
`
`proceedings.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I am an expert in the field of computer systems and software,
`
`including computer bus design. I have studied, taught, practiced, and researched
`
`this field for over 40 years. I summarize in this section my educational
`
`background, work experience, and other relevant qualifications. A true and
`
`accurate copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1025 to the petition.
`
`7.
`
`I have a Bachelor of Engineering Physics degree from Cornell
`
`University, a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from California
`
`Institute of Technology (“Caltech”), and a Ph.D. in Computer Science from
`
`Stanford University.
`
`8.
`
`From 1965 to 1966 at Caltech, my field of study was information
`
`processing systems. My coursework included systems programming such as the
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`construction of compilers and assemblers. From 1966 to 1972, during my graduate
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`
`
`study at Stanford, my field of study was computer architecture and operating
`
`systems. My coursework included computer systems design, programming, and
`
`operating systems. While I was a graduate student at Stanford, I worked in the
`
`Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, where I was a programmer and participated in
`
`the design and implementation of a real-time operating system for use in data
`
`acquisition, storage, and display. My Ph.D. thesis research related to computer
`
`systems organization and the programming of multi-processor computers. I
`
`developed and measured the performance of several parallel programs on a
`
`simulated 16-processor system with a shared memory bus. I also studied file
`
`systems, disk and tape storage subsystems, and input/output.
`
`9.
`
`I have been an employee and a consultant for over thirty years in the
`
`computer systems, software, and storage industry. After earning my doctorate in
`
`Computer Science from Stanford University, I worked as an engineer for a number
`
`of leading companies in the computer industry, including Digital Equipment
`
`Corporation, Tandem Computer, Inc., Apple Computer, Inc., and Quantum
`
`Corporation.
`
`10. During my years working for Digital Equipment Corporation, I
`
`worked on many different design-and-development projects. From 1972 to 1974, I
`
`supervised the development of an input/output channel for high-speed mass storage
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`(disk, drum, and tape) and its implementation on seven different peripheral units
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`
`
`and three different computer systems. From 1974 to 1975, I was a project engineer
`
`leading the development of a new computer system. From 1975 to 1976, I
`
`supervised an operating system development group; I routinely reviewed design
`
`changes and bug reports and fixes for two operating systems. While working for
`
`Digital Equipment Corporation, I wrote a long-term strategic plan for input/output
`
`buses, controllers, and operating systems, including the conversion of most I/O
`
`buses to serial implementations. I am the author of a chapter on computer bus
`
`design in the book Computer Engineering, published by Digital Press in 1978.
`
`11. From 1977 to 1979, I was employed at Tandem Computer, Inc., where
`
`I worked on the design of future multiprocessor systems. I also worked to address
`
`problems related to distributed (networked) systems, including rollback and
`
`recovery of distributed databases.
`
`12. From 1979 to 1982, I was employed by Apple Computer, Inc., where I
`
`worked on the design of a new computer system called “Lisa,” which was a
`
`precursor to the Macintosh. I also supervised hardware and software engineers in
`
`the development of a new serial-bus local-area network technology.
`
`13.
`
`In 1980-81, I taught a course at San Francisco State University titled
`
`“Input/Output Architecture” that dealt with the design of I/O channels (buses),
`
`controllers, storage devices, and the associated software.
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`14. From 1982 to 1992, I consulted for a variety of client companies,
`
`including Apple Computer, Quantum Corporation, and Ricoh Co., Ltd. on project
`
`management and product development. Consulting for Quantum included working
`
`as a temporary supervisor of a firmware development team for a new hard disk
`
`drive. During this time, I co-authored a paper—cited in my attached CV—on the
`
`design of a file system for write-once optical disk drives.
`
`15. From 1993 to 1998, I was employed by Quantum Corporation, a
`
`manufacturer of hard-disk drives, where I formed and managed a new group called
`
`Systems Engineering. While in this role, my responsibilities included managing
`
`software and systems engineers who developed input/output drivers for hard disks
`
`in personal computers, as well as disk performance analysis and simulation
`
`software. I also led the definition and implementation efforts for speed
`
`improvements to the ATA disk interface (bus) standard (called Ultra-ATA/33 and
`
`Ultra-ATA/66), which subsequently led to improvements in the SCSI interface
`
`(bus) standard. I was also involved in the design of file systems for hard disks, data
`
`compression schemes for disk data, and Ethernet-connected disk drives. In addition,
`
`I served as Quantum’s representative to the Audio/Video Working Group of the
`
`1394 (FireWire) Trade Association, a Consumer Electronics industry standards
`
`group, and I participated in Quantum’s efforts to design disks that could record and
`
`play video and audio streams without requiring an intervening computer system.
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`16.
`
`I regularly teach courses such as “Computers – the Inside Story” and
`
`“The Digital Revolution in the Home” at the Fromm Institute for Lifelong
`
`Learning at the University of San Francisco.
`
`17.
`
`I am a named inventor on seven United States patents, including
`
`several related to input/output buses and storage subsystems. I have been disclosed
`
`as an expert in over 60 cases and have testified at trial and in depositions. I also
`
`have served as a technical advisor to two United States District Court Judges.
`
`III. SCOPE OF OPINION
`
`18.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether:
`
`• Claims 1-2, 9-11, and 18 of the ’550 Patent would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,859,522 (“Theobald”) (Ex. 1006) in view of Universal Serial Bus
`
`Specification, Revision 2.0, April 27, 2000 (“USB 2.0”) (Ex. 1007) (Ground I);
`
`• Claims 3 and 12 of the ’550 Patent would have been obvious over Theobald, in
`
`view of USB 2.0, in further view of U.S. Patent No. 6,904,488 (“Matsumoto”)
`
`(Ex. 1008) (Ground II);
`
`• Claims 4-8, 13-17 of the ’550 Patent would have been obvious over Theobald,
`
`in view of USB 2.0, in further view of U.S. Patent No. 6,625,738 (“Shiga”) (Ex.
`
`1009) (Ground III);
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`• Claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18 of the ’550 Patent would have been obvious over U.S.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,360,004 (“Dougherty”) (Ex. 1010) (Ground IV); and
`
`• Claims 4-8, 13-17 of the ’550 Patent would have been obvious over Dougherty,
`
`in view of Shiga (Ground V).
`
`19. This declaration, including the exhibits hereto, sets forth my opinion
`
`on this topic.
`
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`
`20. The materials I considered and relied upon in preparing my
`
`declaration and forming my opinion include all exhibits to the Petition, including
`
`the ’550 patent, the ’550 file history, and all of the relevant prior art. This includes
`
`Exhibits 1001 to 1004, 1006-1024 to the Petition.
`
`21.
`
`I also have relied on my academic and professional experience in
`
`reaching the opinions expressed in this declaration.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`22.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims and the prior art through the eyes of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”). The “art” is the field of technology to which a patent is
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`related. I understand that the purpose of using the viewpoint of a POSITA is for
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`
`
`objectivity.
`
`23.
`
`I considered factors such as the educational level and years of
`
`experience of those working in the pertinent art; the types of problems encountered
`
`in the art; the teachings of the prior art; patents and publications of other persons or
`
`companies; and the sophistication of the technology. I understand that a POSITA is
`
`not a specific real individual, but rather a hypothetical individual having the
`
`qualities reflected by the factors discussed above.
`
`24. Taking these factors into consideration, it is my opinion that a
`
`POSITA as of the time of the ’550 patent would have had either (i) a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus 2-4 years
`
`of experience in design of systems with Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) or
`
`equivalent buses, or (ii) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or a related field, plus 1-2 years of experience in design of systems with
`
`USB or equivalent buses at the time of the ’550 patent’s priority date. Individuals
`
`with additional education or additional industrial experience could still be of
`
`ordinary skill in the art if that additional aspect compensates for a deficit in one of
`
`the other aspects of the requirements stated above. I have been a POSITA since at
`
`least the ’550 patent’s claim priority date.
`
`– 8 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF VALIDITY
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`25. Several legal standards have been explained to me that I should
`
`consider as part of my validity analysis.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that Petitioner bears the burden of proving grounds of
`
`invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that a “preponderance”
`
`means “more likely than not.” I understand that general and conclusory assertions,
`
`without underlying factual evidence, may not support a conclusion that something
`
`is “more likely than not.”
`
`27. Rather, the preponderance of the evidence standard requires that a
`
`reasonable finder of fact be convinced that the existence of a specific material fact
`
`is more probable than the non-existence of that fact. The preponderance of the
`
`evidence standard does not support speculation regarding specific facts, and is
`
`instead focused on whether the evidence more likely than not demonstrates the
`
`existence or non-existence of specific material facts. For Huawei’s Petition, I
`
`understand that Huawei has argued that the claims at issue are obvious in view of
`
`certain prior art references.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that a reference may qualify as prior art as to the
`
`patents-in-suit if it was known or used by others in this country, or patented or
`
`described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention
`
`by the patent holder.
`
`– 9 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`29.
`
`I have also been informed that a reference may qualify as prior art to
`
`the patents-in-suit if the invention was patented or described in a printed
`
`publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country,
`
`more than one year before the effective filing date.
`
`30. For a printed publication to qualify as prior art, I understand that the
`
`Petitioner must demonstrate that the publication was disseminated or otherwise
`
`sufficiently accessible to the public.
`
`31.
`
`It is my understanding that there are two ways in which prior art may
`
`render a patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate”
`
`the claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to
`
`a POSITA.
`
`32.
`
`It is my understanding that a patent claim is unpatentable as being
`
`obvious in view of prior art if the differences between the subject matter sought to
`
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious to a POSITA to which said subject matter pertains at the time the
`
`alleged invention was made. I further understand that an obviousness analysis
`
`takes into consideration factual inquiries such as the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art
`
`and the patent claim.
`
`– 10 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references and for modifying a reference as part of an
`
`obviousness analysis. These rationales include combining prior art elements
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of a
`
`known element for another to obtain predictable results, a predictable use of prior
`
`art elements in accordance with their established functions, applying a known
`
`technique to improve a known device (or process) and yield predictable results,
`
`and choosing from a finite number of known predictable solutions with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success. It is further my understanding that an
`
`obviousness analysis takes into consideration whether the prior art provides a
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine teachings of multiple prior art
`
`references to arrive at the patent claim. I also understand that it may be appropriate
`
`to consider whether there is evidence of a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to
`
`combine the prior art teachings in the prior art, the nature of the problem or the
`
`knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art. I further understand that
`
`techniques available in one field of endeavor, design incentives, and other market
`
`forces can prompt a POSITA to make variations in the same field or other fields.
`
`34.
`
`I have also been informed that the claimed invention must be
`
`considered as a whole in analyzing obviousness or nonobviousness. In determining
`
`the differences between the prior art and the claims, the question under the
`
`– 11 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`obviousness inquiry is not whether the differences themselves would have been
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`
`
`obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious.
`
`35.
`
`I further understand that certain objective indicia can be important
`
`evidence regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious, including the
`
`existence of a long-felt but unsolved need, unexpected results, commercial success,
`
`copying, and industry acceptance or praise. Evidence of such objective indicia
`
`must be considered when present.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,624,550 (“’550 patent”) (Ex.
`1001)
`36. The ’550 patent generally relates to “[a]n adapter for providing a
`
`source of power to a mobile device through an industry standard port.” ’550 patent
`
`(Ex. 1001) 2:19-20. The ’550 patent states that this can be achieved by “detecting
`
`the presence of an abnormal data line condition at the USB port 18.” Id., 9:21-24.
`
`Specifically, the ’550 patent discloses that if there is detection of an abnormal
`
`condition in which the “voltages on both the D+ and D- lines of the USB connector
`
`are greater than 2 Volts (step 220), then the mobile device 10 determines that the
`
`device connected to the USB connector 54 is not a typical USB host or hub and
`
`that a USB adapter 100 has been detected.” Id., 9:39-44. In such a scenario, the
`
`’550 patent discloses that the mobile device can charge the battery or otherwise use
`
`the power from the USB connector, without waiting for enumeration. Id., 9:44-47
`
`– 12 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`(“The mobile device 10 can then charge the battery or otherwise use power
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`
`
`provided via the Vbus and Gnd lines in the USB connector 54 (step 260) without
`
`waiting for enumeration.”). The ’550 patent further discloses that the mobile
`
`device may “draw power without regard to the USB specification and the USB
`
`specification imposed limits.” Id., 8:21-26. In the remaining portion of this
`
`declaration, reference to power drawn via the VBUS line also implicitly refers to
`
`the GND (ground) line, since all power is supplied with reference to ground.
`
`37. The ’550 patent claims that an adapter configured in such a manner is
`
`allegedly a new and non-obvious improvement over prior art.
`
`38. The ’550 patent has 18 claims. Independent claims 1 and 10 are
`
`provided below.
`
`1. An adapter comprising:
`a USB VBUS line and a USB communication path,
`said adapter configured to supply current on the VBUS line
`without regard to at least one associated condition specified in a
`USB specification.
`
`
`10. An adapter comprising:
`a USB VBUS line and a USB communication path,
`said adapter configured to supply current on the VBUS line
`without regard to at least one USB Specification imposed limit.
`
`
`– 13 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`Prosecution History
`
`39. The ’550 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/536,767,
`
`which was filed on June 28, 2012. That same day, the applicant cancelled all
`
`pending claims and added 18 new claims. ’550 file history (Ex. 1002), 177-79.
`
`40. On May 28, 2013, the examiner rejected all pending claims based
`
`upon obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,986,127. Id., 68-70. On August 7, 2013, the applicant responded by filing a
`
`terminal disclaimer. Id., 60-61.
`
`41. The examiner then issued a notice of allowance on September 5,
`
`2013. Id., 50. On November 19, 2013, before the patent issued, the applicant
`
`requested an amendment after allowance to “correct minor clerical errors” and to
`
`“correct a typographical error” made to claim 27. Id., 24. The examiner approved
`
`the amendments, id., 14-15, and the ’550 patent issued on January 7, 2014.
`
`Priority Date
`
`42. The ’550 patent claims priority through a series of continuations to
`
`two provisional applications: (1) the ’021 provisional (Ex. 1003), filed March 1,
`
`2001; and (2) the ’486 provisional (Ex. 1004), filed October 23, 2001. Thus, I
`
`understand that the earliest potential priority date is March 1, 2001.
`
`– 14 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
` Claim Construction
`I understand that the terms of the ’550 Patent are to be given their
`43.
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation as understood by a POSITA at the time of the
`
`invention in view of the specification.
`
`44.
`
`I have been asked to apply the interpretation of “configured to supply
`
`current on the VBUS line without regard to at least one associated condition
`
`specified in a USB specification” (which is recited in claim 1 of the ’550 patent) as
`
`“configured to supply current on the VBUS line without regard to at least one
`
`condition associated with supplying current in a Universal Serial Bus
`
`specification,” as well as Patent Owner’s apparent interpretation of this phrase.1
`
`45.
`
`I have been asked to apply the interpretation of “configured to supply
`
`current on the VBUS line without regard to at least one USB Specification
`
`imposed limit” (which is recited in claim 10 of the ’550 patent) as “configured to
`
`
`1 For example, I understand that based Patent Owner’s Complaint in the Litigation
`
`(Ex. 1024), Patent Owner’s apparent interpretation of its construction for this claim
`
`term relates to both supply and drawing of current on the VBUS line without
`
`regard to at least one condition associated with supplying or drawing current in a
`
`Universal Serial Bus specification.
`
`– 15 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`supply current on the VBUS line without regard to at least one Universal Serial
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`
`
`Bus 2.0 Specification current supply limit.”
`
`46.
`
`I have been asked to apply the interpretation of “USB enumeration”
`
`(which is recited in claims 3 and 12 of the ’550 patent) as “the bus-enumeration
`
`procedure specified in the USB 2.0 specification or an earlier USB specification,”
`
`since the USB 2.0 specification and earlier USB specifications were the only
`
`existing USB specifications at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`47.
`
`Indeed, this is consistent with the disclosures in the ’550 patent. The
`
`“USB” modifier in the term “USB enumeration” indicates that the term refers to an
`
`enumeration procedure specified in a USB specification. The ’550 patent
`
`repeatedly refers to enumeration as a procedure specified in a then-existing USB
`
`specification (i.e., USB 2.0 or earlier). For example, the ’550 patent states that
`
`“[i]n accordance with the USB specification, typical USB power source devices,
`
`such as hubs and hosts, require 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.” ’550 patent (Ex. 1001),
`
`2:3-7 (emphasis added). As another example, the ’550 patent states that
`
`“[t]ypically when a mobile device 10 receives power over the USB from a USB
`
`host, it is required to draw power in accordance with the USB specification. The
`
`USB specification specifies a process for transferring energy across the USB called
`
`– 16 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`enumeration and limits the electrical current that can flow across the USB.” ’550
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`
`
`patent (Ex. 1001), 8:15-20 (emphasis added). From these disclosures, a POSITA
`
`would have understood that, in the context of the ’550 patent, the term
`
`“enumeration” is referring to a specific bus-enumeration procedure specified in the
`
`USB 2.0 specification or an earlier USB specification.
`
`48.
`
`I have also been asked to apply the interpretation of “abnormal data
`
`condition” (which is recited in claims 4, 6, 7, 13, 15 and 16 of the ’550 patent) as
`
`“condition detected at the USB communication path that is not defined as a valid
`
`(or legal) data condition by the USB specification.”
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`49. As I show below, all of the elements of the ’550 patent’s claims were
`
`already well-known in the prior art before the priority date of the ’550 patent.
`
`Therefore I conclude that there is nothing novel or non-obvious about the alleged
`
`invention of the ’550 patent’s claims.
`
` Background and History of USB Technology
`50. Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) is an industry standard interface bus.
`
`As stated, for example, in the Introduction section of the USB 2.0 Specification,
`
`This document defines an industry-standard USB. The specification
`describes the bus attributes, the protocol definition, types of
`transactions, bus management, and the programming interface
`
`– 17 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`required to design and build systems and peripherals that are
`compliant with this standard.
`The goal is to enable such devices from different vendors to
`interoperate in an open architecture.
`USB 2.0 (Ex. 1007), 1.
`
`51. As an initial matter, as of March 1, 2001, a POSITA would have been
`
`familiar with USB Implementers Forum, Inc. (“USB-IF”), which consists of
`
`representatives of industry leading companies that have been and continue to be
`
`responsible for the development, adoption, and advancement of USB technology
`
`since 1995. Similarly, a POSITA would have also had access to and been familiar
`
`with the published USB Specification, which has been publicly available online at
`
`the USB website (see, e.g., Ex. 1022), in its various revisions, including Revision
`
`2.0 (“USB 2.0”) and Revision 1.1 (“USB 1.1”).
`
`52. USB 1.1 was first released on September 23, 1998, and was widely
`
`adopted by industry leaders and consumers. USB 2.0 was subsequently released
`
`on April 27, 2000, and has been publicly available since then to POSITAs in the
`
`USB technology field (at the USB website, and at many other websites, of
`
`universities, companies, and industry analysts and participants), and provided
`
`faster speeds (40 times faster than USB 1.1) and additional functionality, among
`
`other improvements. Moreover, the USB specifications define an industry-standard
`
`bus, including the bus attributes, the protocol, types of transactions, bus
`
`– 18 –
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. John
`Levy
`
`management, and the programming interface required to design and build systems
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,624,550
`
`
`
`and peripherals that are compliant with this standard. USB 2.0 (Ex. 1007), 1.
`
`53. USB-IF continued