throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket