`
`
`
`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.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`___________________
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC's
`PATENT OWNER 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
`
`10522423
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Summary Of The '586 Patent ....................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. The Prior Art References Differ From The '586 Inventions ........................ 4
`A.
`Theobald Overview ............................................................................ 5
`B.
`Dougherty Overview .......................................................................... 6
`C.
`Shiga Overview .................................................................................. 8
`IV. Claim Construction: "The Mobile Device Configurable For Use In
`A Wireless Telecommunications Network" Is Limiting. ............................. 9
`Skill Level Of A POSITA .......................................................................... 11
`V.
`VI. The Petition Should Be Denied Because Its Combinations Rely On
`Shiga's SE1 Signal In Exactly The Same Manner Rejected In
`IPR2018-00111. .......................................................................................... 11
`A.
`This Petition Presents Substantially The Same Theory and
`Evidence Regarding The Shiga Combinations As In
`IPR2018-00111. ............................................................................... 12
`Petitioner's Evidence Fails To Demonstrate That A POSA
`Would Have Had A Reasonable Expectation of Success In
`Using The SE1 Signaling. ................................................................ 17
`The Board's Finding In IPR2018-00111 Is Based On
`Petitioner's Failure to Present Competent Evidence On The
`Use Of SE1 Signals .......................................................................... 23
`VII. The Petition Fails To Establish That Shiga Is Analogous Art To
`The '586 Patent. .......................................................................................... 25
`VIII. Ground 1: The Claims Are Not Rendered Obvious By The
`Theobald/USB 2.0 Specification/Shiga Combination ................................ 27
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`10522423
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`Page
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner Fails To Establish That The Proposed
`Combination Renders Obvious The Claims Having An
`"Identification Signal Being Different Than USB
`Enumeration" (Claims 1-2, 8-9) ....................................................... 27
`The Theobald/Shiga Combination Does Not Render Obvious
`The Claims Using "A Microprocessor And Memory To
`Process The Signals Received On The USB Interface Lines"
`(Claims 11-12). ................................................................................. 29
`Petitioner Fails To Present Competent Evidence Of Either A
`Motivation For A POSITA To Combine Theobald With The
`USB 2.0 Specification & Shiga Or A Likelihood Of Success
`(All Claims). ..................................................................................... 31
`1.
`The Board Should Reject The Reliance On SE1 Signal
`For The Same Reason As Stated In IPR2018-00111,
`Paper 16. ................................................................................. 33
`The Petition Should Be Rejected Because The Petition
`Fails To Establish That Shiga Is Analogous Art. .................. 34
`SE1 Is Incompatible With Theobald's Teaching To
`Use A "Suitable High Speed Data Communications
`Protocol."................................................................................ 34
`Petitioner Ignores Other Methods For Identifying
`Accessories That Would Allow For Identification
`Without Violating The USB Specification. ........................... 36
`(a)
`Petitioners Offer No Reason Why Enumeration
`Would Be Ignored. ...................................................... 36
`Identification Could Alternatively Have Been
`Accomplished Through An Identification Pin. ........... 38
`Petitioner Fails To Address Why Shiga's SE1 Signal
`on D+ and D- Would Be Preferable To Other Non-
`Standard Identification Signals. ............................................. 39
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`(b)
`
`10522423
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`Page
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`6.
`
`Petitioner Provides No Competent Evidence
`That Modified Theobald Would Have Used
`Both Data Lines ........................................................... 40
`Petitioner Also Ignores Other Options For
`Transmitting Identification Information Without
`Using Data Lines. ........................................................ 41
`Theobald Would Not Consider A USB Interface To Be
`A "Suitable" Replacement Under Its Teachings
`Because It Is Not Backwards Compatible. ............................ 42
`IX. Ground 2: Claims 1-2, 8-9, And 11-12 Are Not Obvious Over
`Dougherty In View Of Shiga. ..................................................................... 44
`A.
`Petitioner Has Failed To Prove That Dougherty And Shiga
`Teach "A Mobile Device Configurable For Use In A
`Wireless Telecommunications Network." (All Claims). ................ 44
`Petitioner Fails To Establish That The Proposed
`Combination Renders Obvious The Claims Having An
`"Identification Signal Being Different Than USB
`Enumeration" (Claims 1-2, 8-9) ....................................................... 45
`The Combination of Dougherty And Shiga Fail To Disclose
`"A Plurality Of Charging Modes" (Claims 11 & 12). ...................... 46
`The Dougherty/Shiga Combination Would Not Use A
`Microprocessor And Memory To Process" … "An
`Identification Signal Received At The D+ And D- Lines"
`(Claims 11 & 12). ............................................................................. 48
`Petitioner Fails To Provide Any Competent Factual Basis For
`Its Assertion Of A Motivation To Combine Dougherty and
`Shiga ................................................................................................. 49
`1.
`The Petition's Reliance On The SE1 Signal Has
`Already Been Rejected By the Board And That
`Rejection Should Resolve The Issues Here. .......................... 51
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`10522423
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`Page
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`(b)
`
`The Petition Should Be Rejected Because The Petition
`Fails To Establish That Shiga Is Analogous Art. .................. 51
`The Prior Art Does Not Teach Using An SE1 Signal
`As An "Identification Signal" ................................................ 51
`A POSA Would Conclude That Petitioner's Proposed
`Combination Had No Reasonable Expectation of
`Success ................................................................................... 53
`(a) A POSA Would Believe That Dougherty's
`Laptop Would Not Be Able To Receive SE1
`Signals While Maintaining Normal USB
`Communications .......................................................... 54
`Even If The Laptop Were Programmed To
`Respond To An SE1 Identification Signal, The
`Proposed Combination Is Still Inoperative. ................ 55
`A POSA Would Believe That Making The Suggested
`Modifications Would Disable The Dougherty Docking
`Station's Primary Functionality. ............................................. 57
`(a) Dougherty's Docking Station Expands Ports
`And Requires Normal USB Communication
`With The Laptop. ......................................................... 57
`(b) Dougherty's Handshaking Process Is Necessary
`To Establish Communication. ..................................... 58
`Petitioner Fails to Provide A Reasoned Explanation As
`To Why A POSA Would Have Chosen SE1 Over
`Other Alternatives In The Dougherty System ....................... 59
`A POSA Could Not Use Petitioner's Proposed
`Modification In Dougherty's "Dead Battery" Scenario ......... 60
`Ground 3. .......................................................................................... 61
`F.
`The Board Should Deny The Petition Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .............. 61
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`X.
`
`10522423
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`Page
`
`
`XI. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 62
`
`
`
`10522423
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 47
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 25
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 54, 57
`Carefusion Corp. v. Baxter International, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01456, Paper 9, 7 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2017) ........................................ 10, 11
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ...................................................................... 26, 27
`DSS Tech. Mgmt. v. Apple, Inc.,
`885 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 47
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 59
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp.,
`IPR2017-01777, Paper 13, 3 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2018) ............................................ 1
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 25
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co.,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 44
`Parrot SA v. Drone Techs.,
`IPR2014-00372, Paper 29, 11-12 (PTAB Oct. 20, 2015) .................................. 25
`Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. Automation Middleware Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00048, Paper 13, 16 (PTAB Apr. 18, 2017) ....................................... 46
`
`10522423
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`Page(s)
`
`
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 51, 54
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`IPR2016-00422, Paper 12, 26 (PTAB Jul. 6, 2016) ..................................... 10, 11
`ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems Int’l LLC,
`2018-00111, Paper 16 (PTAB May 9, 2018) ...............................................passim
`ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems Int’l LLC,
` IPR2018-00111, Paper 1 (PTAB Oct. 26, 2017) ............................. 12, 13, 15, 22
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 61, 62
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. 42.65 ........................................................................................................ 46
`37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3) ....................................................................................... 10, 11
`37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3)-(4) ....................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. 42.107(e) .................................................................................................... 1
`Other Authorities
`IPR2018-00111 Paper 16, 19-21 ........................................................................ 28, 33
`IPR2018-00274 and -493 ......................................................................................... 62
`
`10522423
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 2001 Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Fernald in Support of Fundamental
`Innovation Systems International LLC's Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response
`Ex. 2002 Declaration of Mr. Steven Rogers
`Ex. 2003 Excerpts from USB Complete, Jan Axelson, 1999
`Ex. 2004 Excerpts from the USB 2.0 Specification Engineering Change
`Notice (ECN) #1: Mini-B connector, Date: 10/20/2000
`Ex. 2005 Excerpts from the deposition transcript of John Irving Garney in
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00145-
`JRG
`(U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas)
`Ex. 2006 Excerpts from USB Complete (2d. Edition), Jan Axelson, 2001
`Ex. 2007 U.S. Patent Publication No. 20050268000A1 (Carlson)
`Ex. 2008
`J3 Connector in Motorola Micro TAC 5200, 7200 Flip Phones
`Ex. 2009 Declaration by Mr. Baranowski (submitted in IPR2018-00215)
`Ex. 2010 Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Fernald (submitted in IPR2018-
`00110)
`Intentionally Omitted
`Ex. 2011
`Ex. 2012 Excerpts from claim construction order in Fundamental
`Innovation Systems Int'l LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-145-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., Jan 31, 2018)
`Ex. 2013 Excerpts from claim construction order in Fundamental
`Innovation Systems Int'l LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., Case No.
`2:16-cv-1425-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., April 2, 2018)
`Ex. 2014 Fundamental Innovation Systems Int'l LLC v. LG Electronics
`Inc., et al, 16-cv-1425, Dkt. 158 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2018)
`(LG's objections to Claim Construction Order)
`Ex. 2015 U.S. 6,531,845 (Kerai)
`Ex. 2016
`Statutory Disclaimer
`Ex. 2017 U.S. 6,904,488 (Matsumoto)
`
`10522423
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`Petitioner did not submit a statement of material facts in this Petition.
`
`Accordingly, no response is due pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a), and no facts are
`
`admitted.
`
`
`
`10522423.
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Petition should be denied because it fails to demonstrate a reasonable
`
`likelihood that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.1
`
`As a preliminary matter, each of the Petition's combinations relies on the
`
`purported understanding "that [Shiga's] SE1 condition would be a logical choice
`
`for signaling information to a device without interfering with USB signaling." Pet.
`
`13, 48, 63. The Board has found the same argument unpersuasive in IPR2018-
`
`00111, given the USB specification's express teaching that "USB drivers must
`
`never 'intentionally' generate an SE1 on the bus" (Ex. 1007-2, 123) and the
`
`consequent disruption of USB communication. See Section VI. This Petition
`
`should be rejected for the very same reason.
`
`The Petition also fails to establish that Shiga is analogous art (Section VII).
`
`Additionally, its grounds each fail to establish that many limitations of the claims
`
`
`1 Fundamental has disclaimed claims 3, 7, 10 and 13 of the '586 patent due
`
`to a drafting error, and Ground 3 is no longer at issue. Ex. 2016; Halliburton
`
`Energy Servs., Inc. v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., IPR2017-01777, Paper 13, 3
`
`(PTAB Jan. 31, 2018) ("No inter partes review will be instituted based on
`
`disclaimed claims.")(quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e)).
`
`10522423.
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`are obvious or even disclosed and, moreover, fail to establish that a person of
`
`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make its combinations or reasonably
`
`likely to succeed in doing so. These many failings and more are detailed below.
`
`II.
`
`Summary Of The '586 Patent
`The '586 Patent discloses methods and apparatuses that allow a mobile
`
`device to draw current at higher rates than permitted by the USB Specification to
`
`permit faster recharging. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:57-65, 8:9-14. The '586 Patent
`
`teaches that this higher current draw is in response to an identification signal on
`
`USB data lines. See, e.g., id., 8:15-21.
`
`At the time of the invention, devices with a USB data interface typically did
`
`not use the USB interface as a power interface. Id., 1:45-48. A problem with
`
`using a USB interface as a power interface is that it requires enumeration between
`
`the power source and device, and common power sources like AC adapters or DC
`
`car adapters cannot participate in enumeration. Id., 1:56-2:3.
`
`The methods and apparatuses disclosed in the '586 Patent refer to use of "an
`
`identification signal." See, e.g., id., 2:19-21, 2:57-65; 3:5-13; 8:15-34. The USB
`
`2.0 specification defines certain allowable signals for use under specified
`
`10522423.
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`conditions. Ex. 1007, 119-123; see generally id., Chapter 7.2 One expressly
`
`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`disallowed signal is Single-Ended 1, or "SE1." Id., 123. "SE1 is a state in which
`
`both the D+ and D- lines are at a voltage above VOSE1 (min), which is 0.8 V." Id.
`
`The detection of SE1 indicates an error condition, and the USB specification
`
`stipulates that "USB drivers must never 'intentionally' generate an SE1 on the bus."
`
`Id.
`
`Despite the importance of following the requirements of the USB
`
`Specification, the inventors of the '586 Patent recognized that this SE1 state could,
`
`contrary to the dogma of the time, be used carefully to signal to a device that it was
`
`connected to a specially-configured USB power supply, such as a USB Adapter,
`
`instead of a USB Host or Hub. Ex. 1001, 9:7-64, Fig. 3. In this case, the device
`
`could start draw sufficient current for battery charging without waiting for USB
`
`enumeration, as seen in Figure 3 of the '586 Patent, which is described as "a flow
`
`chart illustrating an exemplary use of a USB adapter with a mobile device":
`
`
`2 Citations to Exhibits 1007, 1011, 2003, 2004 2006, 2012 and 2013 are to
`
`its original page numbers.
`
`10522423.
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`
`
`Id., 3:25-26, Fig. 3.
`
`Upon observing an abnormal USB data condition, the mobile device draws
`
`current unrestricted by the USB Specification limit. This could include drawing
`
`more than 100 mA of current without enumeration or more than 500 mA, the
`
`maximally allowed current under USB 2.0. Id., 8:9-14, 9:52-57.
`
`III. The Prior Art References Differ From The '586 Inventions
`The Petition proposes that a POSA would have arrived at the inventions set
`
`forth in the '586 patent by either starting with the power adapter of Theobald and
`
`making numerous modifications purportedly taught by USB 2.0 and Shiga (Ground
`
`1) or starting with the docking station of Dougherty and making numerous
`
`modifications purportedly taught by Shiga (Ground 2) that would end up disabling
`
`10522423.
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`the port expansion functionality of the docking station. The Petition does not
`
`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`propose any other means of combining Theobald or Dougherty with the above-
`
`named references and does not identify any other references that would have been
`
`used in the asserted obviousness combinations. Pet. 6. Even in combination, the
`
`asserted references differ greatly from the inventions claimed in the '586 patent.
`
`An overview of Petitioner's primary references, Theobald, Dougherty and Shiga, is
`
`provided below.
`
`A. Theobald Overview
`Theobald is directed to "a low cost apparatus and method of identifying an
`
`accessory to a device that maintains backward compatibility with existing
`
`accessories that use the accessory connector." Ex. 1006, 1:36-39. The
`
`embodiments relied on by Petitioner in Theobald relate to the "eight pin J3-type
`
`accessory connector used in MicroTAC™ cellular telephones manufactured and
`
`sold by Motorola, Inc." Id., 1:18-21, 3:5-10. Theobald's charging accessory
`
`identifies itself, via an analog audio line, as either a "mid rate" charger (capable of
`
`supplying 350 mA current) or a "fast rate" charger (capable of supplying 850 mA
`
`current). Id., 4:25-40. The use of the audio line for identification enables
`
`Theobald's goal of backward compatibility. Id., 7:14-19. This is achieved by
`
`choosing electrical values that are not associated with preexisting accessories and
`
`could be distinguished from modulated audio signals. Id. at 7:19-29, 7:42-53.
`
`10522423.
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`This is in contrast to SE1 which is a defined invalid or illegal state in the USB 2.0
`
`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`specification with prescribed responses upon observing its occurrence. Ex. 1007,
`
`123, 316.
`
`Theobald states that other "suitable" connectors could also be used. Id.,
`
`1:18-21, 3:5-10. Theobald, however, mandates compliance with the appropriate
`
`protocol: "data is communicated . . . according to the three-wire bus protocol . . .
`
`or other suitable high speed data communication protocol." Id., 6:4-14.3 Nothing
`
`in Theobald suggests that the accessory should deviate from the applicable
`
`standard or protocol (J3 or otherwise). Ex. 2001, ¶¶75, 87.
`
`B. Dougherty Overview
`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 devices." Ex.
`
`1010, 1:61-67. This expansion can be via "port replication across a USB port."
`
`Id., 2:24-25. 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
`
`
`3 All emphasis are added unless otherwise noted.
`
`10522423.
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`USB based docking station that has the capability of both operating the laptop
`
`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`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,
`
`2:9-17 (using port replication to make more ports "available for 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.,
`
`2:25-30 ("[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, ¶97. 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" (i.e., the D+ and D- data lines). Ex. 1010,
`
`4:67-5:3.
`
`Dougherty teaches the use of the VBUS and GND lines to send the
`
`communications necessary "to establish whether laptop computer 100 is capable of
`
`receiving power from the docking station." Id., 5:3-7. This communication takes
`
`10522423.
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`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.
`Id., 4:67-5:3; see also id., 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 an identification signal different from enumeration to the host. This is no
`
`accident. Those lines need to be used for normal USB communication.
`
`C.
`Shiga Overview
`Shiga teaches a USB keyboard connected to a wake-up means that can wake
`
`the host computer up from an "off state," where the primary power supply of the
`
`computer is turned off. Ex. 1009, 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 an SE1 signal 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
`
`10522423.
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`protocol is impossible because the data lines between the host and the USB
`
`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`keyboard "are not connected to each other." Id., 6:4-12. 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. 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. 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. Id., 6:4-11, 6:65-7:15.
`
`Thus, Shiga never suggests that SE1 should be used when a computer is
`
`conducting normal USB communication. Indeed, the USB specification cautions
`
`that "[l]ow-speed and full-speed USB drivers must never 'intentionally' generate an
`
`SE1 on the bus." Ex. 1007-2, 123. Shiga does nothing to the contrary, as the SE1
`
`signal is not sent directly to the USB host. Ex. 1009, 5:63-6:24.
`
`IV. Claim Construction: "The Mobile Device Configurable For Use In A
`Wireless Telecommunications Network" Is Limiting.
`Petitioner urges the Board to treat the preambles as non-limiting because that
`
`was purportedly the position taken by Fundamental in district court. Pet. 29.
`
`Fundamental has not taken such a position. Rather, it only argued that certain
`
`10522423.
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`preambles of another patent are not limiting, a position adopted by the district
`
`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`court. Ex. 2013, 35-36; Ex. 2012, 41-42. Fundamental also never objected to the
`
`district court's construction where it found that the preambles of the '586 patent are
`
`limiting. Ex. 2012, 44 ("Claims 1 and 11 of the '586 Patent, however, rely upon
`
`the preambles to provide antecedent basis for 'the mobile device' recited in the
`
`bodies of the claims, and the preambles provide additional detail regarding 'the
`
`mobile device.' . . . The preambles of these claims are therefore limiting.").
`
`Petitioner's approach to claim construction violates 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3).
`
`Carefusion Corp. v. Baxter International, Inc., IPR2016-01456, Paper 9, 7 (PTAB
`
`Feb. 6, 2017) (rejecting a claim construction approach in which "Petitioner states
`
`that it relies on constructions advanced by Patent Owner in the related litigation;
`
`remarkably, however, Petitioner also states that it does not agree that those
`
`constructions are in fact correct"). Toyota Motor Corp. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`
`IPR2016-00422, Paper 12, 26 (PTAB Jul. 6, 2016) cited by Petitioner does not
`
`compel a different conclusion. To the contrary, in Toyota, the Board also found a
`
`violation of 42.104(b)(3), explaining, "the 'construction' referred to by 37 C.F.R.
`
`42.104(b)(3) is the construction proposed by the Petitioner, one that Petitioner
`
`believes is the correct construction under applicable law and should apply in the
`
`involved proceeding." Id. The Toyota petitioner's reliance on a district court
`
`construction was insufficient because "Petitioner does not take ownership of the
`
`10522423.
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`district court's constructions by indicating, in some way, that it agrees with,
`
`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`proposes, or adopts the construction of this district court." Id. Like the petitions in
`
`Carefusion and Toyota, the Petition here neither proffers the construction "it
`
`believes is correct" nor "takes ownership" of its construction.
`
`Consequently, the Board should reject the Petition for its failure to comply
`
`with the requirements for "content of petition." 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3)-(4) (a
`
`petition is required to "identify" "[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed"
`
`and "[h]ow the [properly] construed claim is unpatentable . . . .").
`
`V.
`
`Skill Level Of A POSITA
`For purposes of this response only, Fundamental applies the skill level
`
`proposed by Petitioner.
`
`VI. The Petition Should Be Denied Because Its Combinations Rely On
`Shiga's SE1 Signal In Exactly The Same Manner Rejected In IPR2018-
`00111.
`The Petition should be denied because its combinations each rely on Shiga's
`
`SE1 signal in exactly the same manner that the Board has rejected in IPR2018-
`
`00111. In both the Theobald/Shiga combination and the Dougherty/Shiga
`
`combinations, the Petition contends that a POSA would be motivated to employ
`
`Shiga's SE1 signal because, allegedly, it can "be easily distinguished from USB
`
`standard signals" "without interfering with the standard USB signaling." Pet. 47,
`
`48 (Theobald/Shiga combination); Pet. 63 (Dougherty/Shiga combination).
`
`10522423.
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`This is the exact same theory raised in IPR2018-00111. See IPR2018-
`
`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`00111, Paper 1, 11-12, 43-44, 45. In IPR2018-00111, faced with this exact same
`
`theory supported by substantially the same evidence, the Board found that
`
`"Petitioner has not sufficiently explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have sought to utilize Shiga's SE1 signal in Rogers' system with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success." IPR2018-00111, Paper 16, 20. In particular, the Board
`
`found that "Petitioner and [its expert] do not explain how a port-disabling SE1
`
`signal could be used in [the primary reference's] system without interfering with
`
`standard USB signal" or "how or why a [POSA] would have modified [primary
`
`reference's] system to successfully operate using Shiga's SE1 signal." Id., 21-22.
`
`The same deficiencies exist in the present petition. Thus, for the same reasons
`
`identified by the Board in IPR2018-00111, the Petition should be denied.
`
`A. This Petition Presents Substantially The Same Theory and
`Evidence Regarding The Shiga Combinations As In IPR2018-
`00111.
`IPR2018-00111 challenged the 8,624,550 patent over the combination of
`
`Rogers and Shiga. See ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems Int'l
`
`LLC, IPR2018-00111, Paper 1 (PTAB Oct. 26, 2017). The '550 patent is in the
`
`same patent family as the '586 patent and the two share the same disclosure.
`
`In both the -00111 petition and in the present Petition, petitioner relied upon
`
`Shiga's SE1 or "fourth mode" signal as a crucial part of the combination presented.
`
`10522423.
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Compare id., 41 ("[T]he Rogers/Shiga combination is Rogers' system combined
`
`Case IPR2018-00485
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`with Shiga's 'fourth mode' signals ..."), with e.g., Pet. 47 (Theobald/Shiga: "The
`
`identification signal would consist of the SE1 signal implemented in Shiga."); id.,
`
`60 (Dougherty/Shiga: "[I]t would have been apparent to the POSITA that
`
`replacing steps (1)-(3) in Dougherty with Shiga's much simpler fourth mode
`
`signal…").
`
`Additionally, both petitions provide precisely the same rationale for
`
`employing Shiga's SE1 signal, as illustrated by the examples below:
`
`IPR2018-00111, Paper 1
`pp. 11-12 ("POSITAs would have also
`known that the SE1 condition would be
`a logical choice for signaling
`information about a device without
`interfering with USB signaling.")
`
`p. 44 ("To avoid interfering with
`standard USB signaling