`
`
`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
`
`_______________
`
`IPR2018-00495
`U.S. Patent No. 7,239,111
`_______________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`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 ......................................................................... 5
`C.
`The ’111 Patent ..................................................................................... 6
`D.
`Prosecution of the ’111 Patent .............................................................. 8
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 9
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`“means for receiving energy from a power socket” (Claim 18) .........10
`A.
`“means for regulating the received energy from the power socket to
`B.
`generate a power output” (Claim 18) .................................................12
`“means for generating an identification signal that indicates to the
`mobile device that the power socket is not a USB hub or host” (Claim
`18) ........................................................................................................14
`“means for coupling the power output and identification signal to the
`mobile device” (Claim 18) ...................................................................16
`VII. REQUESTED RELIEF .................................................................................18
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ........................................................18
`A.
`Challenged Claims and Statutory Grounds .........................................18
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ....19
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 16, and 17 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Dougherty in view of DeJaco, Hahn, and Shiga
` .............................................................................................................20
`1.
`Summary of Dougherty .............................................................20
`2.
`Summary of DeJaco ..................................................................22
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`3.
`Reasons to Combine Dougherty and DeJaco ............................22
`Summary of Hahn .....................................................................25
`4.
`Reasons to Combine Dougherty and Hahn ...............................26
`5.
`Summary of Shiga .....................................................................32
`6.
`Reasons to Combine Dougherty and Shiga ..............................34
`7.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................37
`8.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................56
`9.
`10. Claim 3 ......................................................................................57
`11. Claim 6 ......................................................................................59
`12. Claim 8 ......................................................................................60
`13. Claim 16 ....................................................................................61
`14. Claim 17 ....................................................................................62
`Ground 2: Claims 12 and 14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Dougherty in view of DeJaco, Hahn, Shiga, and Amoni 70
`1.
`Summary of Amoni ...................................................................70
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Dougherty, Hahn, and Amoni.................71
`3.
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................74
`4.
`Claim 14 ....................................................................................76
`Ground 3: Claims 7 and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Dougherty in view of DeJaco, Hahn, Shiga, and USB 2.0 .........78
`1.
`Summary of USB 2.0 ................................................................78
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Dougherty and USB 2.0 ..........................79
`3.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................82
`4.
`Claim 18 ....................................................................................85
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................89
`X.
`XI. CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...........................................................90
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`January 15, 2018
`
`LGE-1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,239,111 to Fischer et al. (“the ’111 Patent”)
`LGE-1002 Prosecution File History of the ’111 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 U.S. Patent No. 5,973,948 to Hahn et al. (“Hahn”)
`LGE-1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,738 to Shiga (“Shiga”)
`LGE-1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,884,086 to Amoni et al. (“Amoni”)
`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 ** Reserved **
`LGE-1013 ** Reserved **
`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 Adel S. Sedra & Kenneth C. Smith, Microelectronic Circuits, 4th
`ed. 1998) (“Sedra Textbook”)
`LGE-1019 ** Reserved **
`LGE-1020 Cypress CY7C63722/23 CY7C63742/43 enCoReTM USB
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`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 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`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 1-3, 6-8, 12, 14, and 16-18
`
`(hereinafter, the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,239,111 (LGE-1001,
`
`the “’111 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 ’111 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 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`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-
`00487.
`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 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`
`
`
`David M. O’Dell
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Brian Graham
`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
`
`972-739-8647
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`brian.graham.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 67,387
`
`consents to electronic service.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’111 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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`
`
`The ’111 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 ’111 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. LGE-1010, ii; 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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`2 The ’111 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.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`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.
`
`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 ’111 Patent
`
`The ’111 Patent describes “a USB adapter for providing a source of power to
`
`a mobile device through a USB port.” LGE-1001, 2:19-21; see also id. 2:3-21,
`
`FIG. 2; LGE-1003, ¶¶42-46.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`LGE-1001, FIG. 2
`
`
`
`The ’111 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, 8:23-25; 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, 9:21-23; LGE-1003, ¶47.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Prosecution of the ’111 Patent
`
`D.
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`During prosecution, the original claims were directed to a USB adapter for
`
`providing power to a mobile device and to a method for providing energy to a
`
`mobile device using a USB adapter. LGE-1002, 145-48. The Examiner rejected
`
`all claims as unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,130,518 to Gabehart. Id. 112-16.
`
`In response, the Applicants argued that “the Gabehart reference does not disclose
`
`or suggest the generation of an identification signal which is configured to indicate
`
`to the mobile device that the power socket is not a USB host or hub, as claimed.”
`
`Id. 110.
`
`A second non-final Office Action was issued that withdrew the rejections in
`
`view of Gabehart but rejected all claims as unpatentable over U.S. Patent
`
`Publication No. 2004/0251878 to Veselic (“Veselic”). LGE-1002, 101-04. In
`
`response, the Applicants argued that Veselic was not prior art because of its
`
`priority date. Id. 82.
`
`A third non-final Office Action was issued that rejected all the claims on the
`
`ground of nonstatutory double patenting in view of the parent, U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 10/087,629. LGE-1002, 73. In response, the Applicants filed a
`
`terminal disclaimer. Id. 69. The Examiner then issued a Notice of Allowance,
`
`without indicating reasons for allowance. LGE-1002, 53.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`
`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.
`
`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 ’111 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).
`
`The below claim limitations recite the term “means” and include functional
`
`language, thereby creating a presumption that 35 USC § 112 ¶ 6 applies. See
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`
`Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`Accordingly, such limitations should be construed as covering the corresponding
`
`structure, material, or acts described in the specification, and equivalents thereof. In
`
`re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`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).3
`
`A.
`
`“means for receiving energy from a power socket” (Claim 18)
`
`The function is “receiving energy from a power socket.”
`
`The ’111 Patent discloses three distinct corresponding structures that may
`
`perform the recited function. These include a “plug unit” “configured to receive
`
`energy from a power socket ... either directly or through the use of a plug
`
`adapter.” LGE-1001, 7:22-26; see also id. 7:12-14, FIG. 2. The ’111 Patent uses
`
`the terms energy and power interchangeably. Compare LGE-1001, 7:22-26 with
`
`
`
`3 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).
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`
`id. 7:12-14 (“The plug unit 106 ... can be used to couple with a conventional
`
`power socket to receive power therefrom.”). A POSITA would have understood
`
`that energy is the integral of power with respect to time. LGE-1014, 18; LGE-
`
`1003, ¶58. Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood that the plug unit
`
`alone and, alternatively, the plug adapter with the plug unit perform this claimed
`
`function. LGE-1003, ¶ 60.
`
`The ’111 Patent also discloses a “power converter” that “is operative to
`
`receive energy from a power socket.” LGE-1001, 7:27-30.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`LGE-1001, FIG. 2
`
`
`
`Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the corresponding
`
`structure encompasses a plug unit, or a plug adapter used with a plug unit, or a
`
`power converter, or an equivalent thereof. LGE-1003, ¶¶57-62.
`
`B.
`
`“means for regulating the received energy from the power socket to
`generate a power output” (Claim 18)
`
`The function is “regulating the received energy from the power socket to
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`
`generate a power output.” The ’111 Patent discloses a “power converter [that] is
`
`electrically coupled to the plug unit and is operable to regulate the received energy
`
`from the power socket and to output a power requirement to the mobile device.”
`
`LGE-1001, 2:9-13; see also id. 7:27-34, 11:10-14; LGE-1003, ¶65.
`
`LGE-1001, FIG. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the corresponding
`
`structure encompasses a power converter or an equivalent thereof. LGE-1003,
`
`¶¶63-66.
`
`C.
`
`“means for generating an identification signal that indicates to the
`mobile device that the power socket is not a USB hub or host”
`(Claim 18)
`
`The function is “generating an identification signal that indicates to the
`
`mobile device that the power socket is not a USB hub or host.”
`
`The ’111 Patent discloses that the corresponding structure is an
`
`identification subsystem or an equivalent thereof. LGE-1001, 8:23-25 (“[t]he
`
`identification subsystem 108 provides an identification signal to the mobile
`
`device 10 that the power source is not a USB limited source.”); see also id. 9:3-8;
`
`LGE-1003, ¶69.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`LGE-1001, FIG. 2
`
`
`
`The ’111 Patent describes two different structures for the identification
`
`subsystem. “In one embodiment, the identification subsystem 108 comprises a
`
`hard-wired connection of a single voltage level to both data lines. In another
`
`embodiment, the identification subsystem 108 comprises a USB controller that is
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`
`operable to communicate an identification signal to the mobile device.” LGE-
`
`1001, 8:31-36; LGE-1003, ¶70.
`
`Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the corresponding
`
`structure encompasses an identification subsystem including a USB controller or a
`
`hard-wired connection of a voltage level, or an equivalent thereof. LGE-1003,
`
`¶¶67-71.
`
`D.
`
`“means for coupling the power output and identification signal to
`the mobile device” (Claim 18)
`
`The function is “coupling the power output and identification signal to the
`
`mobile device.” The preamble of claim 18 recites “[a] Universal Serial Bus
`
`(‘USB’) adapter” that comprises the means.
`
`The ’111 Patent discloses that the USB adapter includes a primary USB
`
`connector to perform this function. LGE-1001, 7:41-43 (“The power converter
`
`104 provides its energy output to the mobile device 10 via ... the primary USB
`
`connector 102.”) The “primary USB connector” also provides “a communication
`
`path” for data to and from the mobile device. Id. 7:4-11; LGE-1003, ¶¶73-74.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`LGE-1001, FIG. 2
`
`
`
`Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the corresponding
`
`structure encompasses a USB connector of a USB adapter or an equivalent thereof.
`
`LGE-1003, ¶¶72-75.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`
`
`VII. REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of claims 1-3, 6-8, 12, 14, and 16-
`
`18 of the ’111 Patent, and cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`A. Challenged Claims and Statutory Grounds
`
`This Petition challenges claims 1-3, 6-8, 12, 14, and 16-18 of the ’111 Patent
`
`on three grounds.
`
`Grounds
`Ground 1
`
`Claims
`1-3, 6, 8, 16,
`and 17
`
`Ground 2
`
`12 and 14
`
`Ground 3
`
`7 and 18
`
`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”),
`U.S. Patent No. 5,973,948 to Hahn et al. (“Hahn”),
`and U.S. Patent No. 6,625,738 to Shiga (“Shiga”)
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dougherty in view of
`DeJaco Hahn, Shiga, and U.S. Patent No.
`5,884,086 to Amoni et al. (“Amoni”)
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dougherty in view of
`DeJaco Hahn, Shiga, and Universal Serial Bus
`Specification, Revision 2.0, April 27, 2000 (“USB
`2.0”)
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`
`Shiga issued from an application filed on December 6, 1999. These references are
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`USB 2.0 was publicly available on April 27, 2000. 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.
`
`Accordingly, this reference is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`Hahn issued as a patent on October 26, 1999. Amoni issued as a patent on
`
`March 16, 1999. These references are prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`IX. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`As explained below in Grounds 1-3, 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.
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`
`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 1-3, 6, 8, 16, and 17 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Dougherty in view of DeJaco, Hahn, and
`Shiga
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Dougherty
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,360,004 to Dougherty describes a “docking station
`
`adapted to supply power…to [a] laptop computer across [a] USB connection.”
`
`LGE-1005, 2:55-58; LGE-1003, ¶¶77-79. The docking station and the docked
`
`laptop are illustrated in below Figures 1 and 2.
`
`LGE-1005, FIG. 1
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`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, ¶¶78-80.
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`
`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, ¶¶81-82.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of DeJaco
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,745,024 to DeJaco describes use of a wireless modem for
`
`laptops. LGE-1006, 4:55-5:1; LGE-1003, ¶83. 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, ¶83.
`
`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, ¶84.
`
`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, ¶85.
`
`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, ¶¶86-90.
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`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, ¶87.
`
`For instance, including such a modem provides the benefits of wireless
`
`access to e-mail. See LGE-1006, 5:8-10; LGE-1003, ¶88. 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. LGE-1006, 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, ¶¶88-
`
`89.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would have been motivated to apply DeJaco’s
`
`teachings of utilizing a wireless modem to provide Dougherty’s laptop with
`
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00495 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,239,111
`
`
`wireless communication, thereby obtaining the numerous distinct advantages
`
`discussed above. LGE-1003, ¶¶86-90. 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, ¶91. To the extent that any
`
`modification would have been needed to the