`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., LG
`ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A. INC., LG ELECTRONICS MOBILE
`RESEARCH U.S.A. LLC, AND LG ELECTRONICS ALABAMA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INT’L, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`IPR2018-00493
`U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586
`_______________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II.
`III.
`
`IX.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`A. Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 1
`B. Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ........................... 2
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 3
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 4
`A. USB 2.0 Background ............................................................................. 4
`B.
`SE1 State for Signaling ......................................................................... 6
`C.
`The ’586 Patent ..................................................................................... 7
`D.
`Prosecution of the ’586 Patent .............................................................. 8
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 8
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`“USB enumeration” .............................................................................10
`A.
`VII. REQUESTED RELIEF .................................................................................11
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ........................................................11
`A.
`Challenged Claims and Statutory Grounds .........................................11
`B.
`Claims 10 and 13 are Not Entitled to Priority to an Earlier Filing Date
` .............................................................................................................13
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ....15
`A. Ground 1: Claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Dougherty in view of DeJaco, and Shiga ....................................15
`1.
`Summary of Dougherty .............................................................15
`2.
`Summary of DeJaco ..................................................................18
`3.
`Reasons to Combine Dougherty and DeJaco ............................18
`4.
`Summary of Shiga .....................................................................21
`5.
`Reasons to Combine Dougherty and Shiga ..............................23
`6.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................26
`7.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................44
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`Ground 2: Claim 10 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Dougherty in view of DeJaco, Shiga, and Casebolt ............................46
`1.
`Summary of Casebolt ................................................................46
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Dougherty and Shiga with Casebolt .......47
`3.
`Claim 10 ....................................................................................50
`Ground 3: Claims 11-12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Dougherty in view of DeJaco, Shiga, and Kalogeropoulos ........52
`1.
`Summary of Kalogeropoulos ....................................................52
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Dougherty and Kalogeropoulos ..............53
`3.
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................56
`4.
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................62
`D. Ground 4: Claim 13 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Dougherty in view of DeJaco, Shiga, Kalogeropoulos, and Casebolt 62
`1.
`Reasons to Combine Dougherty and Casebolt .........................62
`3.
`Claim 13 ....................................................................................62
`Ground 5: Claim 10 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Kanamori .............................................................................................63
`1.
`Summary of Kanamori ..............................................................63
`2.
`Claim 10 ....................................................................................65
`Ground 6: Claim 13 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Kanamori in view of Richard ..............................................................77
`1.
`Summary of Richard .................................................................77
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Kanamori and Richard ............................78
`3.
`Claim 13 ....................................................................................81
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................86
`X.
`XI. CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...........................................................87
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`January 15, 2018
`
`LGE-1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586 to Fischer et al. (“the ’586 Patent”)
`LGE-1002 Prosecution File History of the ’586 Patent
`LGE-1003 Declaration of Dr. Jonathan R. Wood
`LGE-1004 CV of Dr. Jonathan R. Wood
`LGE-1005 U.S. Patent No. 7,360,004 to Dougherty et al. (“Dougherty”)
`LGE-1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,745,024 to DeJaco et al. (“DeJaco”)
`LGE-1007 ** Reserved **
`LGE-1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,738 to Shiga (“Shiga”)
`LGE-1009 ** Reserved **
`LGE-1010 Universal Serial Bus Specification, Revision 2.0, April 27, 2000
`(“USB 2.0”)
`LGE-1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,790 to Casebolt et al. (“Casebolt”)
`LGE-1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,337,560 to Kalogeropoulos et al.
`(“Kalogeropoulos”)
`LGE-1013 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0272741 to Kanamori
`(“Kanamori”)
`LGE-1014 Daniel W. Hart, Introduction to Power Electronics, 1997 (“Hart
`Textbook”)
`LGE-1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,859,645 to Yu (“Yu”)
`LGE-1016 U.S. Patent No. 7,260,835 to Bajikar (“Bajikar”)
`LGE-1017 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0016890 to Sonoda (“Sonoda”)
`LGE-1018 ** Reserved **
`LGE-1019
` U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0239019 to Richard et al. (“Richard”)
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`LGE-1020 Cypress CY7C63722/23 CY7C63742/43 enCoReTM USB
`Combination Low-Speed USB & PS/2 Peripheral Controller,
`Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, May 25, 2000 (“Cypress
`enCoRe”)
`LGE-1021 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0135766 to Zyskowski et al.
`(“Zyskowski”)
`LGE-1022 ***Reserved***
`LGE-1023 ***Reserved***
`LGE-1024 ***Reserved***
`LGE-1025 ***Reserved***
`LGE-1026 ***Reserved***
`LGE-1027 ***Reserved***
`LGE-1028 ***Reserved***
`LGE-1029 Declaration of Geert Knapen
`LGE-1030 Declaration of Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee
`
`
`Note that the following analysis will cite to the page numbers provided in
`
`the above-listed exhibits, if available. Also, the following analysis may bold,
`
`underline and/or italicize quotations and add color or annotations to the figures
`
`from these exhibits for the sake of emphasis.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311, 314(a), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Petitioner
`
`respectfully submits that the present Petition presents a reasonable likelihood that
`
`at least one claim is unpatentable in view of the prior art and respectfully requests
`
`that the Board review and cancel as unpatentable claims 8-13 (hereinafter, the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586 (LGE-1001, the “’586
`
`Patent”).1
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics
`
`U.S.A. Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A. Inc., LG Electronics Mobile
`
`Research U.S.A. LLC, and LG Electronics Alabama, Inc. (collectively “LGE” or
`
`“Petitioner”) certifies that it is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), to the best knowledge of the Petitioner,
`
`the ’586 Patent is involved in the following litigation:
`
`• Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. ZTE Corporation
`et al., Case No. 3-17-cv-01827. This case was originally filed in the
`Eastern District of Texas on February 13, 2017, styled as Case No. 2-17-
`
`
`1 Petitioner reserves the right to raise additional statutory challenges in the
`
`concurrent litigation as appropriate.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`cv-00124, and was transferred to the Northern District of Texas on July
`12, 2017.
`• Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2-17-cv-00145, Eastern District of
`Texas.
`• Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Huawei
`Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-01424, Eastern
`District of Texas.
`• Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. LG Electronics,
`Inc. et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-01425, Eastern District of Texas. Petitioner
`is the named Defendant in this pending case.
`• Petition for Inter Partes Review by Huawei Device Co., Ltd., IPR2018-
`00485.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`counsel (and a power of attorney accompanies this Petition).
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Back–up Counsel
`Gregory P. Huh
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`214-651-5533
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 32,271
`
`972-739-6939
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`gregory.huh.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 70,480
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`
`
`
`David M. O’Dell
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Adam C. Fowles
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`
`972-739-8635
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 42,044
`
`972-739-8674
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`adam.fowles.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 65,005
`
`consents to electronic service.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’586 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the Challenges
`
`identified in this Petition.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. USB 2.0 Background
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`The ’586 Patent2 and this IPR pertains generally to powering a device using
`
`Universal Serial Bus (“USB”). USB was well-known at the earliest possible
`
`priority date for the ’586 Patent. Specifically, the USB Implementers Forum
`
`(USB-IF) released USB Revision 1.1 on September 23, 1998 and released USB
`
`Revision 2.0 (“USB 2.0”) on April 27, 2000.3 LGE-1010, ii;4 LGE-1003, ¶¶30-40.
`
`“When a USB device is attached to or removed from the USB, the host uses ... bus
`
`enumeration to identify and manage the device state changes,” and USB 2.0
`
`
`
`2 The ’586 Patent claims priority back to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
`
`60/273,021, filed on March 1, 2001, and to U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`
`No. 60/330,486, filed on October 23, 2001.
`
`3 Mr. Geert Knapen, who participated in drafting the USB 2.0 Specification,
`
`provides testimony demonstrating that the USB 2.0 Specification was made
`
`publicly available on April 27, 2000. LGE-1029, 1; see also LGE-1015, 1:41-43;
`
`LGE-1016, 5:29-49.
`
`4 The following analysis will cite to the page numbers provided in the above-listed
`
`exhibits, if available.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`
`discloses eight actions taken to enumerate the device. LGE-1010, 243-44; LGE-
`
`1003, ¶34, 38.
`
`The USB 2.0 “specification covers two aspects of power.” LGE-1010, 18.
`
`In the first aspect, “a limited amount of power [is provided] over the cable,” that
`
`includes a pair of power lines (VBUS and GND) and a twisted pair of data lines (D+
`
`and D-), shown in Figure 4-2 below. LGE-1010, 17-18; see also id. 18, 86; LGE-
`
`1003, ¶¶35-37, 39.
`
`LGE-1010, FIG. 4-2
`
`
`
`While powering, USB 2.0 allows for drawing current over the VBUS line up
`
`to a limit of 100mA for a low-power device and before enumeration, or 500mA for
`
`a high-power device. LGE-1010, at 171. USB 2.0 also limits voltage on the VBUS
`
`line to 5.25V. LGE-1010, 175, 178, Table 7-7; LGE-1003, ¶39. Further, USB 2.0
`
`covers the second aspect of using “its own power supply” and “power management
`
`system” that interacts with the USB System Software. LGE-1010, 17-18; LGE-
`
`1003, ¶33.
`
`The USB data lines can be in four different signaling states. One state,
`
`according to USB 2.0, is the “SE1 state” “in which both the D+ and D- lines are
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`
`at a voltage above VOSE1 (min), which is 0.8 V.” LGE-1010, 123; LGE-1003,
`
`¶40.
`
`B.
`
`SE1 State for Signaling
`
`Using the SE1 state (i.e., D+ and D- high) for signaling over the USB data
`
`lines was well-known in the art, as evidenced by the below discussed examples.
`
`LGE-1003, ¶41.
`
`1st Example: Shiga (LGE-1008) applied 3 volts on both the D+ and D- data
`
`lines, for signaling purposes. LGE-1008, Abstract, 6:43-47. Shiga explains that
`
`this signaling state is useful for “providing a function that USB does not have”
`
`since it is “not a USB standard state” and therefore “can be easily distinguished
`
`from USB standard data signals.” LGE-1008, 2:5-6, 5:60-62, 6:53-58, 8:48-58; see
`
`also id. Abstract; LGE-1003, ¶41.
`
`2nd Example: Casebolt (LGE-1011) pulled up the D+ and D- data lines to
`
`generate the SE1 state to indicate the type of device connected to the USB
`
`interface. LGE-1011, 6:66-7:8, 7:30-34; LGE-1003, ¶41.
`
`3rd Example: Sonoda (LGE-1017) used the SE1 state to indicate to the host
`
`computer the nature of the apparatus attached to the port. LGE-1017, Abstract,
`
`FIGS. 1 and 2. LGE-1003, ¶41.
`
`4th Example: Cypress Semiconductor (LGE-1020) used the SE1 state in
`
`their enCoRe product. LGE-1020, 21-25, 41; LGE-1003, ¶41.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`5th Example: Zyskowski (LGE-1021) used the SE1 state to signal that it is
`
`operating at full power. LGE-1021, ¶¶17-19; LGE-1003, ¶41.
`
`C.
`
`The ’586 Patent
`
`The ’586 Patent describes “a USB adapter for providing a source of power to
`
`a mobile device through a USB port.” LGE-1001, 2:22-24; see also id. 2:7-24;
`
`LGE-1003, ¶¶42-46.
`
`
`
`LGE-1001, FIG. 2
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`The ’586 Patent’s USB adapter transmits an “identification signal” to the
`
`mobile device, indicating that the adapter is not limited by the USB Specification.
`
`LGE-1001, 8:15-17; LGE-1003, ¶46. “The preferred identification signal results
`
`from the application of voltage signals greater than 2 volts to both the D+ and D-
`
`lines in the USB connector.” LGE-1001, 9:13-15; LGE-1003, ¶47.
`
`D.
`
`Prosecution of the ’586 Patent
`
`During prosecution, a non-final Office Action rejected all claims under
`
`“nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-12 of U.S. patent
`
`No. 7,737,657.” LGE-1002, 78. The claims were otherwise identified as allowable
`
`“if accompanied by an approved Terminal Disclaimer.” Id. The Applicants then
`
`filed a terminal disclaimer over U.S. Patent No. 7,737,657. Id. 60, 69. The Office
`
`subsequently issued a Notice of Allowance on September 9, 2010, without
`
`providing reasons for allowance. LGE-1003, ¶¶48-51.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, a
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (“POSITA”) at the time would have had a
`
`master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus
`
`two to three years of power electronics design experience including experience
`
`with serial communication systems such as USB. LGE-1003, ¶¶20-24.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`
`Furthermore, a person with less education but more experience, or more education
`
`but less experience, would also meet the relevant standard for a POSITA. LGE-
`
`1003, ¶23. Dr. Jonathan Wood, whose declaration is contained herein, was a
`
`POSITA at the earliest possible priority date for the ’586 Patent. LGE-1003, ¶5-
`
`19, 23; LGE-1004.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`During inter partes review, claims of an unexpired patent are to be given
`
`their “broadest reasonable interpretation” consistent with the specification, unless
`
`the inventor, as a lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning for a term. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-45
`
`(2016). All claim terms not specifically construed below are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`consistent with the disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007).5
`
`
`
`5 Because the standard for claim construction at the USPTO is different from that
`
`used in other forums, Petitioner reserves the right to argue in other forums, a
`
`different construction for any term, as appropriate to that proceeding. See In re
`
`Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`A.
`
`“USB enumeration”
`
`
`
`This claim term is found in claim 8 of the ’586 Patent. A POSITA would
`
`understand the “USB” modifier in “USB enumeration” to indicate that “USB
`
`enumeration” refers to an enumeration procedure specified in a USB Specification.
`
`LGE-1003, ¶¶52-55.
`
`While the ’586 Patent does not refer to “USB enumeration” specifically, the
`
`’586 Patent refers to “enumeration,” and does so as a procedure specified in a then-
`
`existing USB Specification (i.e., USB 2.0 or earlier). “In 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.” LGE-1001, 1:58-62. The ’586 Patent states that “[t]he USB
`
`Specification specifies a process for transferring energy across the USB called
`
`enumeration and limits the electrical current that can flow across the USB.” Id.
`
`8:5-8. LGE-1003, ¶56.
`
`A POSITA would have understood from the above that the ’586 Patent’s
`
`references to “enumeration” refer to a specific bus-enumeration procedure in the
`
`USB 2.0 Specification or an earlier USB Specification. LGE-1003, ¶57. For
`
`example, the ’586 Patent describes enumeration as a “host-initiated process”
`
`needed “to be compliant with the current USB Specification in drawing power
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`
`from the USB interface.” LGE-1001, 1:60-62; LGE-1003, ¶57.
`
`Consistent with the ’586 Patent’s description, the USB 2.0 Specification
`
`describes bus enumeration as a host-initiated process that a USB device must
`
`undergo before it communicating data over the USB interface. LGE-1010, 243-44.
`
`Thus, in the context of the ’586 Patent, a POSITA would have recognized that
`
`“enumeration” refers to the bus-enumeration procedure in the USB 2.0
`
`Specification or an earlier Specification. LGE-1003, ¶58.
`
`Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the ’586
`
`Patent specification, a POSITA would have understood “USB enumeration” means
`
`the bus-enumeration procedure specified in the USB 2.0 Specification or an earlier
`
`USB Specification. LGE-1003, ¶¶59-60.
`
`VII. REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of claims 8-13 of the ’586 Patent,
`
`and cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`A. Challenged Claims and Statutory Grounds
`
`This Petition challenges claims 8-13 of the ’586 Patent on six grounds.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Grounds
`Ground 1
`
`Claims
`8-9
`
`Ground 2
`
`10
`
`Ground 3
`
`11-12
`
`Ground 4
`
`13
`
`Ground 5
`
`10
`
`Ground 6
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. Patent No. 7,360,004 to
`Dougherty et al. (“Dougherty”) in view of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,745,024 to DeJaco et al. (“DeJaco”),
`and U.S. Patent No. 6,625,738 to Shiga (“Shiga”)
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dougherty in view of
`DeJaco, Shiga, and U.S. Patent No. 6,625,790 to
`Casebolt et al. (“Casebolt”)
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dougherty in view of
`DeJaco, Shiga, and U.S. Patent No. 6,337,560 to
`Kalogeropoulos et al. (“Kalogeropoulos”)
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dougherty in view of
`DeJaco, Shiga, Kalogeropoulos, and Casebolt
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`2008/0272741 to Kanamori (“Kanamori”)
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kanamori in view of U.S.
`Patent Pub. No. 2007/0239019 to Richard et al.
`(“Richard”)
`
`
`Prior art (claims 8-13)
`
`Dougherty is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 09/608,082, filed on
`
`June 30, 2000. DeJaco issued from an application filed on January 10, 2000.
`
`Shiga issued from an application filed on December 6, 1999. Casebolt issued
`
`from an application filed on October 1, 1999, which was a continuation-in-part
`
`with priority back to July 8, 1998. Kalogeropoulos issued from an application
`
`filed on November 28, 2000. These references are prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).Intervening prior art (claims 10 and 13)
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`As discussed in the next section, because the subject matter of dependent
`
`claims 10 and 13 is not entitled to the priority of any prior application in the
`
`priority chain of the ’586 Patent, the earliest possible priority date for claims 10 or
`
`13 of the ’586 Patent is the filing date of the ’586 Patent itself, February 26, 2010.
`
`LGE-1003, ¶¶209-10, 268-69.
`
` Kanamori published on November 6, 2008. Richard published on
`
`October 11, 2007. Kanamori and Richard both published more than one year
`
`prior to the earliest possible priority date for claims 10 and 13 of February 26,
`
`2010. Kanamori and Richard are therefore prior art to claims 10 and 13 under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`B. Claims 10 and 13 are Not Entitled to Priority to an Earlier Filing
`Date
`
`There is no presumption that a patent claim is entitled to the filing date of
`
`the provisional application or any of the parent non-provisional applications. See
`
`Dynamic Drinkware v. National Graphics, 800 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(“[B]ecause the PTO does not examine priority claims unless necessary, the Board
`
`has no basis to presume that a reference patent is necessarily entitled to the filing
`
`date of its provisional application.”). A patent claim is entitled to the benefit of the
`
`filing date of an earlier-filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier-filed
`
`application “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
`
`possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc.
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`
`v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Here, the ’586 Patent claims priority back to U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/273,021, filed on March 1, 2001, and to U.S. Provisional
`
`Patent Application No. 60/330,486, filed on October 23, 2001. None of the earlier-
`
`filed applications, however, disclose the claimed “resistance” between the D+ and
`
`D− data lines. The only mention of a “resistance” between data lines is found in
`
`the as-filed application that issued as the ’586 Patent. LGE-1003, ¶¶209, 268.
`
`Moreover, to the extent Patent Owner argues that the claimed “resistance”
`
`would have been obvious, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that a disclosure
`
`that merely renders obvious the claimed invention is not sufficient to satisfy the
`
`written description requirement. See, e.g., Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154,
`
`1159 (Fed. Cir. 1998); PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299,
`
`1306-07 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter
`
`which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.”).
`
`Therefore, because the applications in the priority chain of the ’586 Patent
`
`fail to disclose a “resistance” between data lines, as recited in claims 10 and 13,
`
`these claims are only entitled to the actual filing date of the ’586 Patent—February
`
`26, 2010. LGE-1003, ¶¶209, 268.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`
`IX. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`As explained below in Grounds 1-6, all of the elements of the Challenged
`
`Claims were well-known in the art. The arguments presented in these grounds are
`
`based on the combined teachings of references which were not considered by the
`
`examiner. Further, this Petition relies on the declaration testimony of Dr. Wood
`
`(LGE-1003), which was not before the examiner previously. Therefore, given that
`
`none of the below grounds present the same or substantially the same prior art or
`
`arguments as were previously presented during examination, the Board should
`
`decline to exercise its discretion under Section 325(d), as it has done in similar
`
`circumstances. See Comcast Cable Communications LLC, v. Rovi Guides, Inc.,
`
`IPR2017–00939, Paper 11, at 36–38 (PTAB Sep. 11, 2017); Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`v. Mobile Telecommunications Techs., LLC, IPR2017–00642, Paper 24, at 8–9
`
`(PTAB Jul. 7, 2017); Panties Plus, Inc., v. Bragel International, Inc., IPR2017–
`
`00044, Paper 6, at 9–10 (PTAB Apr. 12, 2017).
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Dougherty in view of DeJaco, and Shiga
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Dougherty
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,360,004 to Dougherty (LGE-1005) describes a “docking
`
`station adapted to supply power…to [a] laptop computer across [a] USB
`
`connection.” LGE-1005, 2:55-58; LGE-1003, ¶¶61-63. The docking station and
`
`the docked laptop are illustrated below in Figures 1 and 2.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`LGE-1005, FIG. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`LGE-1005, FIG. 2
`
`
`
`Dougherty explains that when the laptop is docked, the devices engage in a
`
`handshaking protocol over USB serial communication lines which “reveal[] to ...
`
`the laptop computer 100 that the docking station 200 is capable of providing power
`
`across the power rails 138 of the USB interface”. LGE-1005, 4:60-66, 5:26-52,
`
`FIGS. 1 and 2; LGE-1003, ¶62-64.
`
`The docking station then “ramp[s] the voltage on the positive USB power
`
`rail 244, 144 up to approximately 18 volts.” LGE-1005, 7:3-7. “Laptop computer
`
`100 ... operates using the 18 volt power supplied by the docking station 200 across
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`
`the USB interface.” Id. 7:15-17. In this way, Dougherty’s docking station is
`
`adapted to power its laptop using the USB connectors. LGE-1003, ¶¶65-66.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of DeJaco
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,745,024 to DeJaco (“DeJaco”) describes use of a wireless
`
`modem for laptops. LGE-1006, 4:55-5:1; LGE-1003, ¶67. DeJaco recognizes
`
`numerous benefits of using a wireless modem including “the possibility to combine
`
`the mobility of a portable device with the efficiency of e-mail communications.”
`
`Id. 5:8-10; see also id. 1:18-32; LGE-1003, ¶67.
`
`3.
`
`Reasons to Combine Dougherty and DeJaco
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
`
`Dougherty and DeJaco to produce the obvious, beneficial, and predictable result of
`
`equipping Dougherty’s laptop with a wireless modem for wireless communication.
`
`LGE-1003, ¶68.
`
`First, a POSITA when considering the teachings of Dougherty would have
`
`also considered the teachings of DeJaco since they are analogous prior art and both
`
`pertain to the same field of endeavor of portable computing devices, including
`
`laptops. LGE-1005, Abstract, 1:20-46; LGE-1006, 4:55-5:17; LGE-1003, ¶69.
`
`Second, a POSITA would have found it obvious to utilize DeJaco’s
`
`teachings in Dougherty’s laptop because this combination would have yielded
`
`beneficial and predictable results. LGE-1003, ¶¶70-74.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`Dougherty recognizes that a portable laptop computer is desirable “for a user
`
`who travels frequently and needs computing power in those travels” (LGE-1005,
`
`1:30-32) and seeks to provide a lightweight portable laptop that “allows for remote
`
`operation” (Id. 1:27-44). DeJaco supplements Dougherty and teaches including a
`
`wireless modem in the laptop for communication when operating remotely. LGE-
`
`1006, 4:58-5:6. A POSITA would have found it obvious to use a wireless modem,
`
`as DeJaco teaches, when implementing the laptop of Dougherty because this
`
`combination would allow the laptop to connect to a wireless network and
`
`beneficially allow for wireless communication. LGE-1003, ¶71.
`
`For instance, including such a modem provides the benefits of wireless
`
`access to e-mail. See LGE-1006, 5:8-10; LGE-1003, ¶72. DeJaco describes
`
`numerous distinct benefits of e-mail including low cost, speed, longevity, security,
`
`authentication, and ease of distribution to multiple recipients. LGE-1006, 1:18-32.
`
`Further, DeJaco explains that a wireless modem may be used to connect to the
`
`Internet. Id., 1:38-41, 4:62-65; 5:9-14. A POSITA would have recognized many
`
`uses of a laptop that would take advantage of wireless Internet access including
`
`sharing files, video, and audio. See e.g., id. 3:16-32; LGE-1003, ¶¶72-73.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would have been motivated to apply DeJaco’s
`
`teachings of utilizing a wireless modem to provide Dougherty’s laptop with
`
`wireless communication, thereby obtaining the numerous distinct advantages
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00493 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,834,586
`
`
`discussed above. LGE-1003, ¶¶70-74. The above noted benefits, separately and
`
`together, would have motivated a POSITA to make the proposed combination. Id.
`
`Modifying Dougherty’s laptop to include a wireless modem, based on
`
`DeJaco’s teaching, would have been within the ability of a POSITA and would
`
`produce operable and predictable results. LGE-1003, ¶75. To the extent that any
`
`modification would have been needed to the teachings of Dougherty to
`
`accommodate the teachings of DeJaco, such modifications would have been within
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. In that regard, the Board has repeatedly
`
`recognized that “it is often necessary and within the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`to modify the teachings of two references in order to combine them.” Shaw
`
`Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc., IPR2013-00132, Paper 9
`
`at *26 (July 25, 2013) (citing to I