`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 11
`Entered: August 10, 2018
`
`
`
`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 IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`——————
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, JON B. TORNQUIST, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`A.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”)1 filed a Petition for inter
`partes review (Paper 2, “Pet.”) of claims 1–3, 6–8, and 16–18 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,239,111 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’111 patent”). Fundamental Innovation
`Systems International LLC (“Patent Owner”)2 filed a Preliminary Response
`(“Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. Paper 6.
`We have discretion to institute an inter partes review when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Applying that standard, we decline to institute an inter partes review based
`on the information presented.
`
`B.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The parties identify the following related matters pursuant to
`37 § C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2):3
`
`
`1 Petitioner identifies Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Co.,
`Ltd., Huawei Device USA Inc., Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd.,
`Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Tech. Investment Co., Ltd.,
`and Huawei Device (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. as the real parties in interest.
`Pet. 4.
`2 Patent Owner states that it is the owner of the ’111 patent, that
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International Holdings LLC is its parent
`entity, and that it has contracted with TnT IP, LLC to manage its patent
`portfolio. Paper 4, 1.
`3 See Pet. 4; Paper 4, 1–3; Ex. 1025, 3–4.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`
`District court cases: Fundamental Innovation Systems International
`LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00145 (E.D. Tex.);
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Huawei Investment &
`Holding Co. et al., No. 2:16-cv-01424-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Fundamental
`Innovation Systems International LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No.
`2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Fundamental Innovation Systems
`International LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al., No. 3:17-cv-01827-N (N.D. Tex.).
`Inter partes reviews: IPR Nos. 2018-00276, 2018-00465, 2018-00472,
`2018-00485, and 2018-00495.
`
`2.
`
`THE USB 2.0 SPECIFICATION AND THE SE1 STATE
`
`By way of background, the ’111 patent relates to the USB 2.0
`specification,4 an industry-wide serial bus standard, which “describes the
`bus attributes, the protocol definition, types of transactions, bus
`management, and the programming interface required to design and build
`systems and peripherals that are compliant with this standard.” Ex. 1007, 1.
`Figure 4-2 of the USB 2.0 specification, reproduced below, shows a
`USB-compliant cable:
`
`
`
`
`4 COMPAQ COMPUT. CORP. ET AL., UNIVERSAL SERIAL BUS SPECIFICATION,
`REV. 2.0 (2000) [hereinafter USB 2.0] (Ex. 1007).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`Figure 4-2 depicts four conductors: VBUS and GND deliver power to
`devices, and D+ and D− are a twisted pair of signal conductors. See Ex.
`1007, 18, 86, 94, 102.
`The USB 2.0 specification designates “SE1” as a state in which D+
`and D− conductors are both high (i.e., at a voltage greater than 0.8 V). See
`id. at 123, 145. The specification states that “[l]ow-speed and full-speed
`USB drivers must never ‘intentionally’ generate an SE1 on the bus.” Id. at
`123; see also id. at 148 n.4 (“A high-speed driver must never ‘intentionally’
`generate a signal in which both D+ and D− are driven to a level above 200
`mV. The current-steering design of a high-speed driver should naturally
`preclude this possibility.”).
`
`3.
`
`THE ’111 PATENT (EX. 1001)
`
`The ’111 patent discloses “a USB adapter for providing a source of
`power to a mobile device through a USB port.” Ex. 1001, 2:35–36.
`According to the patent, those in the industry understood that one could use
`a USB interface for both data and power; however, mobile devices typically
`did not use the USB interface for that purpose. See id. at 1:52–54. This is
`because USB devices, according to the USB specification, must “participate
`in a host-initiated process called enumeration in order to be [USB]
`compliant” in drawing power from the USB interface, but “alternate power
`sources such as conventional AC outlets and DC car sockets” were “not
`capable of participating in enumeration.” Id. at 1:54–67.
`To allow mobile devices to be recharged using a broader range of
`power sources, the ’111 patent describes a USB adapter for providing power
`to a mobile device without first participating in enumeration. Id. at 9:1–14.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`Figure 2 of the patent, reproduced below, is a schematic diagram of such a
`USB adapter coupled to an exemplary mobile device:
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts USB adapter 100, which couples mobile device 10 to
`various types of power sockets, 100N, 110D, 110B, or 110. Id. at 6:65–67,
`Certificate of Correction 1. The figure shows plug adapters 114N, 114D,
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`114B, and 114 for connecting to each of these sockets, respectively. Id. at
`7:17–22, Certificate of Correction 1. The plug adapters allow USB
`Adapter 100 to receive energy from various local or specialized power
`sources, such as North American power socket 110N (115 VAC), a 12 VDC
`automobile power socket, or an air power socket. Id. at 7:49–52.
`USB adapter 100 comprises primary USB connector 102, power
`converter 104, plug unit 106, and identification subsystem 108. Id. at 6:57–
`60. According to the ’111 patent, when one connects USB adapter 100 to
`mobile device 10 (via USB connector 102 on the adapter side and USB
`connector 54 on the mobile device side), identification subsystem 108
`provides an identification signal to mobile device 10, indicating that the
`power source is not subject to the power limitations imposed by the USB
`specification. Id. at 8:17–25, 9:3–8, 35–39.
`In the preferred embodiment, this identification signal is “the
`application of voltage signals greater than 2 volts to both the D+ and D−
`lines in the USB connector.”5 Id. at 9:21–23. If mobile device 10 detects
`this identification signal, it determines that the device connected to its USB
`connector 54 “is not a typical USB host or hub,” and that it is USB adapter
`100. Id. at 9:35–39. Thus, mobile device 10 can charge battery 60 or
`otherwise use power provided by power adapter 100, without waiting for
`USB enumeration. Id. at 9:39–42, 9:60–65. Otherwise, if mobile device 10
`detects that both D+ and D− lines are not greater than 2 volts, mobile device
`10 determines that it is connected to a USB host or hub, and signals the
`connected host or hub to initiate the enumeration process, and it can power
`
`
`5 This corresponds to the SE1 state on the USB data bus. See Ex. 1007, 123.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`or charge battery 60 according to the power limits imposed by the USB
`specification. Id. at 9:43–55, 10:1–6; see also id., Fig. 3.
`
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS AND ASSERTED GROUNDS OF
`4.
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–3, 6–8, and 16–18
`of the ’111 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006).6 Pet. 5. Independent
`claim 1 is as follows:
`1. A Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) adapter for providing
`power to a mobile device through a USB port, comprising:
`a plug unit configured to receive energy from a power
`socket;
`a power converter coupled to the plug unit, the power
`converter being configured to regulate the received
`energy from the power socket to generate a power output;
`an identification subsystem configured to generate an
`identification signal, wherein the identification signal is
`configured to indicate to the mobile device that the power
`socket is not a USB host or hub; and
`a USB connector coupled to the power converter and the
`identification subsystem, the USB connector being
`configured to couple the power output and the
`identification signal to the mobile device.
`Ex. 1001 at 11:60–12:8 (emphasis of key phrase added).
`Independent claim 17 recites a “method for providing energy to a
`mobile device,” using an adapter substantially similar to claim 1, that
`includes “generating an identification signal that is configured to indicate to
`the mobile device that the power socket is not a USB host or hub.” Id. at
`
`
`6 Because the ’111 patent was filed before March 16, 2013, the version of 35
`U.S.C. § 103 that existed prior to the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act
`applies. See Pub. L. No. 112-29, sec. 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. 284, 293 (2011).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`13:1–13. Independent claim 18 recites a USB adapter, substantially similar
`to claims 1 and 17, but written in “means plus function” form. See id. at
`14:1–11. It includes, among other limitations, “means for generating an
`identification signal that indicates to the mobile device that the power socket
`is not a USB hub or host.” Id. at 14:7–9.
`The remaining challenged claims, 2, 3, 6–8, and 16, depend directly or
`indirectly from claim 1. See id. at 12:9–67.
`In the table below is a summary of the grounds in the Petition:
`References
`Basis
`Challenged Claims
`Theobald,7 USB 2.0,8 and Shiga9
`§ 103(a)
`1–3, 6–8, and 16–18
`Dougherty10 and Shiga
`§ 103(a)
`1–3, 6–8, and 16–18
`
`Pet. 5.
`
`C. ANALYSIS
`
`1.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner argues that a person with ordinary skill in the art, relevant to
`the subject matter of the ’111 patent,
`would have had either (i) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engi-
`neering, 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 electri-
`cal 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 ’111 patent’s priority date.
`
`7 Theobald, US 5,859,522 (issued Jan. 12, 1999) (Ex. 1006).
`8 Supra note 4.
`9 Shiga, US 6,625,738 B1 (issued Sept. 23, 2003) (Ex. 1009).
`10 Dougherty et al., US 7,360,004 B2 (issued Apr. 15, 2008) (Ex. 1010).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`Pet. 8; see also Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 22–24. For its Preliminary Response, Patent
`Owner does not contest this as the applicable level of skill. Prelim. Resp.
`20. Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary
`skill in the art for the purpose of this Decision.
`
`2.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`We need only construe claim terms “that are in controversy, and only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999)). For the purpose of this Decision, the only claim term requiring
`an express construction is “identification signal . . . configured to indicate to
`the mobile device that the power socket is not a USB host or hub” in claims
`1 and 17. Ex. 1001 at 12:2–4, 13:7–9 (emphasis added).11 Petitioner urges
`us to construe this term as “identification signal . . . configured to indicate to
`the mobile device that the USB adapter is not a USB host or hub.” Pet. 22.12
`In essence, Petitioner proposes that we adopt a construction that replaces the
`words “the power socket” with “the USB adapter.” We disagree.
`We interpret a patent claim term using the “broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”
`
`
`11 Our construction of this phrase also applies to claim 18, which contains
`the similar phrase “identification signal that indicates to the mobile device
`that the power socket is not a USB hub or host.” Id. at 14:7–9. We consider
`this phrase to be synonymous with the phrase we are construing in claims 1
`and 17.
`12 Patent Owner does not contest this construction in the Preliminary
`Response. Prelim. Resp. 22–23 n.4.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,
`2144–46 (2016). “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the
`claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent
`with the specification and prosecution history.” Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The plain meaning of a term is “its
`meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`Petitioner offers no evidence that replacing “the power socket” with
`“the USB adapter” is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`term in question, in light of the patent disclosure. To the contrary, the ’111
`patent consistently discloses USB adapters that are distinct from associated
`power sockets. Claim 1 itself is directed to a USB adapter, which comprises
`a plug unit configured to receive energy from a power socket. See Ex. 1001,
`11:60–63. The power socket, therefore, is something other than the claimed
`USB adapter itself. In Figure 2, “power sockets” 110N, 110D, 110B, and
`110 are depicted outside the box identified as USB adapter 100. See id., Fig.
`2, 6:64–67. Likewise, passages in the specification consistently treat USB
`adapters and power sockets as distinct. See, e.g., id. at 2:38–40 (“The plug
`unit is operative to couple the USB adapter to a power socket.”), 7:46–47
`(“[T]he USB adapter . . . can be adapted to receive energy from various
`types of power sockets.”), 7:63–65 (plug adapters “allow[] the USB power
`adapter . . . to connect to a local power supply via the local power socket”).13
`
`
`13 Petitioner also argues, inconsistently with its proposed construction, that
`Theobald discloses a power socket because Theobald’s power adapter can
`“mate with a conventional wall outlet.” See Pet. 31 (quoting Ex. 1006,
`4:18–25).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`
`However, Petitioner argues that its proposed construction is “[t]he
`only plausible interpretation” of the term consistent with Patent Owner’s
`complaint in the parallel district court litigation, given that Patent Owner
`“asserts the ’111 patent against a number of USB power adapters.” Pet. 22
`(citing Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 14, 56; Ex. 1005 ¶ 46). This is extrinsic evidence, and as
`such, it is less relevant to the construction than the intrinsic record including
`the patent disclosure. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. It is improper to rely
`on extrinsic evidence when, as here, an analysis of the intrinsic evidence
`alone resolves any ambiguity as to the meaning of the term. Vitronics Corp.
`v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`In light of the above considerations, we determine that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have understood that
`“the power socket” and “the USB adapter” are distinct elements in claims 1,
`17, and 18, and would not have interpreted “the power socket” to mean “the
`USB adapter.”
`
`ASSERTED UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1–3, 6–8, AND 16–18 AS
`3.
`OBVIOUS OVER THEOBALD IN VIEW OF USB 2.0 AND SHIGA
`
`a.
`
`Theobald (Ex. 1006)
`
`Theobald describes an apparatus for identifying an accessory as it is
`attached to an electronic device, based on a voltage level generated by the
`accessory. Ex. 1006, 1:53–59. In the preferred embodiment, the device is a
`Motorola cell phone, and the accessory is either a mid or fast rate charger
`that uses an eight-pin J3-type connector attached to a Motorola cell phone.
`Id. at 3:5–8, 4:29–33. However, Theobald states that the connector “may be
`any other suitable multiple pin accessory connector having an external
`power supply pin and at least one information pin.” Id. at 3:8–10. Theobald
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`also discloses that data communication between the accessory and the
`electronic device may be by any “suitable high speed data communication
`protocol.” See id. at 6:4–13.
`We reproduce Figure 1 of Theobald below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts electronic device 102 attached to accessory 104. Ex. 1006,
`2:4–6. Accessory 104 has plug 171, transformer and regulator 172,
`connector 173, and identification element 174. Id. at 4:6–8. Plug 171 is
`compatible to mate with a conventional wall outlet (not shown in Figure 1)
`to provide external power to accessory 104. Id. at 4:18–21. Connector 173
`includes AUD OUT line 179. Id. at 4:41–45. Identification element 174, a
`resistor that is uniquely valued depending on whether accessory 104 is a mid
`or fast rate charger, is coupled between transformer and regulator 172 and
`AUD OUT line 179, via lines 176 and 187, respectively. See id. at 4:55–67.
`Controller 108 in electronic device 102 identifies accessory 104 by
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`measuring the voltage level from the accessory’s AUD OUT line 179, and
`comparing that level to an accessory lookup table. See id. at 6:14–50.
`
`b.
`
`Shiga (Ex. 1009)
`
`Shiga describes a system for turning on a host computer’s power
`supply using an input device, such as a keyboard, via a USB interface. Ex.
`1009, 1:13–19. Shiga’s Figure 1, which we reproduce below, shows an
`embodiment of the system:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts host computer 1, which includes USB chip 2, wake-up
`means 3, switching means 4 (depicted as a relay), power supply 5, and sub-
`power supply 6. Id. at 4:12–14, 4:54. Keyboard 11, containing USB chip
`12, is connected via USB cable 9 to host computer 1. Id. at 4:47–53.
`The system operates as follows: When power supply 5 is off,
`keyboard 11 is connected as shown in the figure, via relay 4, to wake-up
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`means 3, which draws a small amount of power from sub-power supply 6.
`See id. at 6:4–34. When a user activates a power-on key on keyboard 11,
`chip 12 sends an SE1 signal to host 1, which turns on main power supply 5.
`Id. at 6:35–7:15. When main power supply 5 is on, relay 4 connects
`keyboard 11 to USB chip 2, thus enabling USB data transmissions. Id. at
`7:16–30.
`
`c.
`
`Analysis
`
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`had reason to modify Theobald by replacing the disclosed eight-pin J3-type
`connector with a USB 2.0 connector, and by using USB 2.0 as the
`communications protocol. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 85–86), 42.
`Petitioner also argues that a skilled artisan would have further modified
`Theobald, according to the teachings of Shiga, to use an SE1 signal for
`identification, rather than a resistor as disclosed in Theobald. Pet. 33, 43–
`47.
`
`However, Petitioner’s analysis, and the analysis presented by its
`declarant Dr. Levy, are premised on Petitioner’s proposed construction for
`the phrase “identification signal . . . configured to indicate to the mobile
`device that the power socket is not a USB host or hub,” Ex. 1001, 12:2–4
`(emphasis added), as meaning “identification signal . . . configured to
`indicate to the mobile device that the USB adapter is not a USB host or
`hub.” See Pet. 22, 26–26; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 46–47 (“I have been asked to
`interpret ‘power socket’ . . . to refer to the USB adapter itself.”). In
`particular, Petitioner argues that Theobald, as modified by USB 2.0 and
`Shiga, teaches that an SE1 “signal transmitted by the fast-rate adapter
`additionally indicates to the connected electronic device that the fast-rate
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`adapter is not a USB hub or host.” Pet. 33 (emphasis added) (citing Ex.
`1005 ¶ 103).
`Petitioner has not shown that Theobald, USB 2.0, Shiga, or any
`combination of these references would have taught or suggested this
`limitation, as we have construed it above. While Theobald may identify
`accessory 104 as either a mid rate or fast rate charger, Petitioner has not
`provided a rationale for how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have used Theobald’s identification system, as modified by the
`teachings of USB 2.0 and Shiga, to indicate that the power socket is not a
`USB host or hub.
`Therefore, based on this record, Petitioner is not reasonably likely to
`prevail at trial in showing that claims 1–3, 6–8, and 16 of the ’111 patent or
`independent claims 17 and 18, which recite the same “power socket”
`limitation, would have been obvious over the combination of Theobald,
`USB 2.0, and Shiga.
`
`ASSERTED UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1–3, 6–8, AND 16–18 AS
`4.
`OBVIOUS OVER DOUGHERTY IN VIEW OF SHIGA
`
`a.
`
`Dougherty
`
`Dougherty discloses a method and system for powering a laptop
`across a USB interface when it is docked with a docking station. Ex. 1010,
`1:21–26. Figure 1 of Dougherty, reproduced below with Petitioner’s color
`annotations (Pet. 19) is a schematic of the disclosed system:
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, the system of Dougherty includes laptop computer
`100 (orange) and docking station 200 (blue), which are connected (in the
`green portion that Petitioner labels as “USB Cable”) via USB bus serial
`communication lines 126, USB power rail 138, USB connector 136 (of
`laptop computer 100), and USB connector 236 (of docking station 200). Ex.
`1010, 3:44–5:7.
`In order to establish a powered connection between a battery-powered
`laptop 100 and docking station 200, laptop 100 first identifies docking
`station 200, via normal USB handshaking protocol across data lines 126, as
`a device capable of providing external power. Id. at 5:39–52. Laptop 100
`then loads a driver, which turns off the laptop’s ability to provide 5 V to
`USB power rails 138. Id. at 5:53–6:3. When this occurs, the laptop is in the
`same state it would be in if it had no battery or the battery were completely
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`discharged. Id. at 6:4–10. Next, docking station docking logic 234
`establishes whether laptop 100 is capable of receiving power, by attempting
`to establish communications across power rails 138 with a reactive signaling
`circuit in laptop docking logic 134. Id. at 6:10–7:2; see also id., Fig. 2
`(depicting logic 134 and logic 234 in more detail). If so, docking logic 234
`ramps the voltage in power rails 138 up to 18 V in order to charge laptop
`battery 132. Id. at 7:3–19.
`
`a.
`
`Analysis
`
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`had reason to replace Dougherty’s elaborate communication between the
`laptop and docking station with a simple transmission or exchange of
`identifying SE1 signals as taught by Shiga. See Pet. 60–61. According to
`Petitioner, this modification would not require specific hardware
`modifications to the laptop, and would be a simpler and faster alternative.
`Id. Petitioner argues that this substitution would be a predictable and trivial
`change, given that Dougherty’s system is already configured to transmit
`USB signals such as SE1 over data lines 126. See id. at 62. Petitioner
`argues that this change “would merely be the use of a known technique to
`improve a similar device in the same way.” Id. at 63 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 192;
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)); accord id. at 64.
`Furthermore, Petitioner argues that Dougherty teaches the desirability of
`reducing complexity and latency, and that Shiga teaches the desirability of
`using SE1 as a non-USB-standard signal. Id. at 62–63.
`According to Petitioner, Dougherty as modified by Shiga teaches the
`“identification signal” as recited in claim 1, because an SE1 signal “is not a
`USB standard state,” therefore, “this signal indicates to the mobile device
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`(i.e., the laptop) that the USB adapter (i.e., the docking station) is not a USB
`hub or host.” Id. at 51.
`However, claim 1, as we have construed it above, requires that the
`identification signal indicate to the mobile device that the power socket, not
`the USB adapter, is not a USB host or hub. Petitioner’s argument, which
`relies on interpreting “the power socket” in claim 1 as “the USB adapter,” is
`not consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “power
`adapter,” in light of the ’111 patent disclosure. Petitioner has not provided a
`rationale for how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`used Dougherty’s system, as modified by the teachings of Shiga, to indicate
`that the power socket is not a USB host or hub.
`Therefore, based on this record, Petitioner is not reasonably likely to
`prevail at trial in showing that claims 1–3, 6–8, and 16, of the ’111 patent, or
`independent claims 17 and 18, which recite the same “power socket”
`limitation, would have been obvious over the combination of Dougherty and
`Shiga.
`
`5.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the
`Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that there is not a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Therefore, pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a), we decline to institute an inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`D. ORDER
`It is
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is
`DENIED, and no inter partes review is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00487
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`David A. Garr
`Anupam Sharma
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`dgarr@cov.com
`asharma@cov.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Hong Annita Zhong
`Michael Fleming
`IRELL & MANELLA LL
`hzhong@irell.com
`mfleming@irell.com
`FundamentalIPRs@irell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`