`
`
`
`
`
`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.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`___________________
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC’s
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
`Background On The USB Communication Protocol ................................... 5
`A.
`Enumeration to Establish Communication Between Host And
`Device ................................................................................................. 5
`Single Ended 1 (“SE1”) Line State .................................................... 6
`B.
`Summary Of The ’111 Patent ....................................................................... 9
`III.
`IV. The Prior Art References Differ From The ’111 Inventions ...................... 12
`A. Dougherty Overview ........................................................................ 12
`1.
`Dougherty’s Docking Station ................................................ 12
`2.
`Dougherty’s Alleged Improvement Over Prior Art ............... 14
`3.
`Dougherty’s Docking Station Logic ...................................... 15
`(a) Docking When Laptop Is Operational ......................... 16
`(b) Docking When Laptop Is Non-Operational
`(Dead Battery Or No Battery) ..................................... 18
`Shiga Overview ................................................................................ 18
`B.
`Skill Level Of A POSA .............................................................................. 20
`V.
`VI. The Board Should Deny Institution Because LG Has Failed to
`Name All Real Parties-in-Interest............................................................... 20
`VII. The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion Under 325(d) ........................... 26
`VIII. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 16, and 17 Are Not Obvious Over
`Dougherty In View Of DeJaco, Hahn, and Shiga ...................................... 27
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`Page
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioners Fail to Present Competent Evidence That A
`POSA Would Have Used Hahn’s Power Supply For
`Dougherty’s Docking Station ........................................................... 28
`1.
`Petitioners Ignore That Hahn’s Power Supply Is
`Incompatible With Dougherty’s Docking Station ................. 28
`Petitions Fail To Present Competent Evidence That A
`POSA Would Have Considered Dougherty and Hahn
`Simultaneously ....................................................................... 29
`Petitioners Fail To Present Competent Evidence That The
`Proposed Combination Discloses An Identification Signal
`“Configured To Indicate To The Mobile Device That The
`Power Socket Is Not A USB Host Or Hub” ..................................... 34
`Petitioners Fail To Provide Any Competent Factual Basis For
`Their Assertion Of A Motivation To Combine Dougherty,
`DeJaco, Hahn, and Shiga .................................................................. 37
`1.
`The Prior Art Does Not Teach Using SE1 As An
`“Identification Signal” ........................................................... 40
`A POSA Would Conclude That Petitioners’ Proposed
`Combination Had No Reasonable Expectation of
`Success ................................................................................... 44
`(a) A POSA Would Believe That Dougherty’s
`Laptop Would Not Be Able To Receive SE1
`Signals While Maintaining Normal USB
`Communications .......................................................... 44
`Even If The Laptop Were Programmed To
`Respond To An SE1 Identification Signal, A
`POSA Would Conclude That The Proposed
`Combination Is Still Inoperative ................................. 46
`A POSA Would Believe That Making The Suggested
`Modifications Would Disable The Dougherty Docking
`Station’s Primary Functionality ............................................. 48
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`(b)
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`Page
`
`4.
`
`A POSA Could Not Use Petitioners’ Proposed
`Modification In Dougherty’s “Dead Battery” Scenario ........ 51
`Shiga Is Not Analogous Art ................................................... 53
`5.
`IX. Ground 2: Claims 12 and 14 Are Not Obvious Over Dougherty In
`View of DeJaco, Hahn, Shiga, and Amoni ................................................. 56
`X. Ground 3: Claims 7 and 18 Are Not Obvious Over Dougherty In
`View Of DeJaco, Hahn, Shiga, and USB 2.0 ............................................. 58
`XI. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp.,
`IPR2016-01371, Paper 7 (Jan. 11, 2017) ...................................................... 27, 35
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 33
`Atlanta Gas Light Co.,
`Case IPR2013-00456, slip op. ............................................................................ 20
`Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulatory Guards, Inc.,
`Case IPR2013-00456, slip op. (PTAB Jan. 6, 2015) ........................ 20, 21, 22, 23
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 52
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................ 30, 42, 46, 57
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 55, 57
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 53
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................ 27, 49, 50
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 52, 54
`Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, LLC,
`662 Fed. App’x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................... 28, 30
`Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Americas, Inc.,
`855 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 29, 30
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`Page(s)
`
`
`Par Pharm. v. TWI Pharm.
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 32
`Securus Techs, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`701 Fed. App’x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................. 30
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................. 37, 41, 46
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008) ...................................................................................... 21, 22
`ZOLL Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp.,
`Case IPR2013-00606, slip op. (PTAB Mar. 10, 2014) ...................................... 20
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ............................................................................................... 27, 34
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106(b) .............................................................................................. 20
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ............................................................................................... 19
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ................................................................................................... 20
`
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Ex. 2001 Declaration of Robert Baranowski in Support of Fundamental
`Innovation Systems International LLC’s Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response
`[intentionally omitted]
`Ex. 2002
`Ex. 2003 Excerpts from the deposition transcript of John Irving Garney in
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00145-JRG
`(U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas)
`[intentionally omitted]
`Ex. 2004
`Ex. 2005 Robert Baranowski Curriculum Vitae
`Ex. 2006 Excerpts from USB Complete (2d. Edition), Jan Axelson, 2001
`Ex. 2007 LG Corporation Annual Report (2016)
`Ex. 2008 LG Electronics Inc. Corporate Structure Tree
`Ex. 2009
`2016-2017 LG Electronics Sustainability Report
`Ex. 2010 Excerpts from LG Corporation Annual Report (2017) (translated
`from Korean)
`Ex. 2011 LG Corporation Key Developments Report
`Ex. 2012
`[intentionally omitted]
`Ex. 2013
`[intentionally omitted]
`Ex. 2014 Excerpts from USB Complete, Jan Axelson, 1999
`
`10497347
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`Petitioners did not submit a statement of material facts in this Petition.
`
`Accordingly, no response is due pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a), and no facts are
`
`admitted.
`
`
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`U.S. Patent No. 7,239,111, entitled “Universal Serial Bus Adapter For A
`
`Mobile Device” (the “’111 patent”), is directed to a novel USB adapter that, among
`
`other things, uses an “identification signal” to inform a connected mobile device
`
`about the nature of the USB adapter and its charging capabilities.
`
`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. (“Petitioners”) requested inter partes review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 1-3, 6-8, 12, 14, and 16-18 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’111 patent on
`
`three grounds. Pet. at 18. Petitioners challenge the validity of the Challenged Claims
`
`based on a combination of Dougherty (LGE-1005), Shiga (LGE-1008), DeJaco
`
`(LGE-1006), and Hahn (LGE-1007) (all grounds), and further in combination with
`
`Amoni (LGE-1009) (Ground 2) or the Universal Serial Bus Specification, Revision
`
`2.0 (“USB 2.0”) (LGE-1010) (Ground 3). This Petition is an essential mirror image
`
`of the Petitions presented by Huawei in IPR2018-00487 and ZTE/Samsung in
`
`IPR2018-00276. Petitioners also fail to name LG Corporation as a real-party-in-
`
`interest; and the Petition should thus be denied.
`
`Further, Petitioners fail to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for
`
`numerous reasons. First, the Petition fails to identify a claimed power converter that
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`can output the 45W power required to operate and charge Dougherty’s laptop.
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`
`Second, the Petition fails to explain how the identified prior art references,
`
`singly or in combination, disclose an identification signal “configured to indicate to
`
`the mobile device that the power socket is not a USB host or hub,” as required by all
`
`of the challenged claims. To the contrary, under Petitioners’ proposal, the alleged
`
`identification signal, “SE1” signal, is sent by a USB hub (Dougherty’s docking
`
`station, see Pet. 35-36, 74-75) acting as such and therefore does not necessarily
`
`indicate that the sender is “not a USB host or hub.”
`
`Third, the apparatus disclosed in Petitioners’ primary reference, Dougherty,
`
`provides the functionality of a USB hub and it was accepted by POSA’s at the time
`
`that it would not function properly if it is sent the SE1 signal. The Petition offers no
`
`explanation for how—much less why—a POSA would modify Dougherty to include
`
`the claimed functionality, nor does the Petition identify any relevant teaching in the
`
`prior art.
`
`Fourth, the Petition also fails to provide factual support for its contention that
`
`a POSA would have been motivated to combine between four and five very different
`
`references together in the manner that Petitioners contend. For example, the Petition
`
`announces that a POSA would have made extensive modifications to the Dougherty
`
`apparatus – including introducing a purported “identification signal” called “SE1”
`
`that would eliminate much of Dougherty’s functionality – in order to arrive at the
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`claimed inventions. The Petition fails to explain why a POSA would have been
`
`motivated to modify Dougherty in a way that would have had no reasonable
`
`expectation of success, would have rendered Dougherty’s primary functionality
`
`inoperable, and – unlike Dougherty’s disclosed system – would not function when
`
`used with a laptop having a dead or missing battery. Indeed, when faced with a
`
`similar argument and reason to combine, the Board found that a POSA would not
`
`have “sought to utilize Shiga’s SE1 signal” in a prior art USB system “with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success.” ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation
`
`Systems Int’l LLC, Case No. IPR2018-00111, Paper 16 (May 9, 2018) at 19-22. In
`
`particular, the Board was unpersuaded that a POSA “would have modified Rogers’
`
`[prior art USB system] to successfully operate using Shiga’s SE1 signal” in light of
`
`problems involving interference with standard USB communications and device
`
`disconnections that are equally applicable, if not more so, to the Dougherty/Shiga
`
`combination asserted here. Id. at 20-22; see, e.g., Sections C.2-C.4, infra; Ex. 2001,
`
`¶¶ 64-86.
`
`Fifth, the Petition fails to provide evidence of a prior art teaching of using the
`
`“SE1” signal as an identification signal “configured to indicate to the mobile device
`
`that the power socket is not a USB host or hub” as recited in the claims. The Petition
`
`relies solely on Shiga, which describes the use of SE1 for an entirely different
`
`purpose that is totally unrelated to device identification or even communication with
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`a USB device.
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`
`Sixth, the Petition also fails to satisfy basic requirements of establishing a
`
`prima facie case of obviousness, including establishing that the obviousness
`
`references are analogous art to the claimed invention and identifying a motivation to
`
`combine references. Indeed, the Petition does not even contend, much less support
`
`its contention with competent factual evidence, that the Shiga reference (used in all
`
`proposed combinations) is analogous art to the ’111 patent; at most, the Petition
`
`contends that Shiga is analogous to other identified prior art, which is insufficient to
`
`qualify Shiga as a valid obviousness reference here. The Petition also fails to provide
`
`factual support for its contention that a POSA would have been motivated to
`
`combine Dougherty with the Hahn reference (used in all proposed combinations),
`
`relying solely on citations to an expert declaration that simply repeats the attorney
`
`argument of the Petition verbatim. Compare Pet. at 26 with LGE-1003, ¶¶ 98-99.
`
`This circular, conclusory testimony cannot support the Petition’s obviousness
`
`combinations, particularly when the evidence clearly shows that, to the contrary, the
`
`Dougherty and Hahn references are directed to different problems entirely.
`
`For these and further reasons stated below, Patent Owner Fundamental
`
`Innovation Systems International LLC (“Fundamental”) respectfully requests that
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) deny the Petition because it does
`
`not present a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail as to any challenged
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`claim under any of the three asserted grounds.
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`
`II. Background On The USB Communication Protocol
`The Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) architecture is a “cable bus that supports
`
`data exchange between a host computer and a wide range of simultaneously
`
`accessible peripherals.” LGE-10101, 43. Up to 127 USB devices can be directly or
`
`indirectly connected to a single host. Id. at 44.
`
`When a USB device is plugged into a USB host or hub, power can be provided
`
`by the host or the hub. The USB host and connected device negotiate power
`
`allocation so that sufficient power can be directed to each connected device without
`
`overdrawing power from the host. LGE-1010, 44-47. At the time of the inventions,
`
`the USB specifications limited the amount of current that a device may draw to 500
`
`milliamps (mA) after configuration and 100 mA before configuration. LGE-1010,
`
`271-72.
`
`A. Enumeration to Establish Communication Between Host And
`Device
`USB enumeration is a handshaking protocol by which the host can identify,
`
`address and configure each peripheral device. LGE-1010, 271-72 (describing steps
`
`of enumeration process). Before enumeration, the host can perform only basic
`
`
`1 Patent Owner’s citations are to the page numbers (1-650) that Petitioners
`have added to the filed Exhibit LGE-1010 documents.
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`communications with the device to get the information necessary to configure the
`
`device. LGE-1010, 271-273. Once configured, the device is “enumerated” and
`
`“ready for use.” Id. After enumeration and configuration, the device may
`
`send/receive data over the D+ and D- data lines in accordance with the USB
`
`specification. LGE-1010, 46-48.
`
`B.
`Single Ended 1 (“SE1”) Line State
`One of the four possible states that the USB data lines can be in is the “SE1
`
`state,” “in which both the D+ and D- lines are held at high voltage. LGE-1010, 151.
`
`The USB specification warns that “USB drivers must never ‘intentionally’ generate
`
`an SE1 on the bus.” LGE-1010, 151.
`
`Petitioners suggest that at the time of the invention “[u]sing the SE1 state (i.e.,
`
`D+ and D- high) for signaling over the USB data lines was well-known in the art”
`
`and purports to identify several prior art examples of such use of SE1 signaling in
`
`USB communication. Pet., 5-6. To the contrary, SE1 was not used when normal
`
`USB communication was in progress, precisely because SE1 could interfere with
`
`USB communications. Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 37-50.
`
`Indeed, in a related District Court action regarding infringement of the ’111
`
`patent, Samsung’s expert James Garney correctly acknowledged that an SE1
`
`condition interferes with USB signaling because a USB port enters a “disconnect
`
`state” upon observing SE1. Ex. 2003, 261:6-22 (“[N]o more data signaling would
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`be delivered across that communication—across that connection between the hub
`
`and the attached device or hub that might be connected to it.”); Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 49-50.
`
`The testimony of Samsung’s expert is highly relevant because this Petition simply
`
`adapts various IPRs already filed by Samsung. See, e.g., IPR2018-00110; IPR2018-
`
`00111;
`
`IPR2018-00214;
`
`IPR2018-00215;
`
`IPR2018-00274;
`
`IPR2018-00276;
`
`IPR2018-00605; IPR2018-00606; IPR2018-00607.
`
`Samsung’s expert’s understanding is further confirmed by Petitioner’s
`
`identified examples from prior art references, none of which discloses transmitting
`
`an SE1 signal on USB data lines that were transmitting or would continue to transmit
`
`standard USB communications. Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 42-47. Rather, each of the prior art
`
`references describes the use of SE1 states solely in situations where normal USB
`
`communications are not possible (and thus cannot be interfered with).
`
`For example, Petitioners assert that Shiga (LGE-1008) taught the use of SE1
`
`“for signaling purposes” in a manner that “can be easily distinguished from USB
`
`standard data signals.” Pet., 6. But Petitioners ignore that in Shiga, this “SE1” state
`
`is provided not to Shiga’s USB host, or as part of USB communication at all, but
`
`rather to a separate “wake-up means” circuit used to toggle the power switch on a
`
`computer’s power supply. See, e.g., LGE-1008, 3:1-9, 6:8-12, 7:16-30 (the signal
`
`lines used to send SE1 are “not connected” to the signal lines of the USB host when
`
`SE1 is sent).
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`Petitioners also assert that Zyskowski (LGE-1021) taught the use of SE1 by a
`
`“host device (e.g., computer) to signal that it is in a full power state to a connected
`
`device.” Pet., 6. To the contrary, Zyskowski teaches that a USB device may observe
`
`normal USB communication on the USB data paths – not an abnormal SE1 signal –
`
`to determine whether the host computer is powered on (e.g., in a “full power state”)
`
`or in standby mode (“reduced power state”). LGE-1021, [0019]. Specifically,
`
`Zyskowski explains that a USB device may “detect that the host 104 is in a reduced
`
`power state by monitoring the state of one or both of the [USB] data paths D1 and
`
`D2.” Id. In other words, a USB host will, in normal operation, pull the D1 and D2
`
`data lines “high” at various times, which indicates that the host must be powered on
`
`and operating. Id. Zyskowski is not teaching that both of the USB data paths will
`
`be “high” simultaneously (i.e., an SE1 state), nor would it, as such a state would be
`
`invalid and would not indicate that the host is operating normally. Ex. 2001, ¶ 44.
`
`Petitioners also assert that Casebolt (LGE-1011) taught that SE1 state could
`
`be used to “indicate the type of device connected to the USB interface.” Pet., 6. But
`
`Casebolt uses SE1 only for PS/2 devices and expressly teaches that an SE1 signal
`
`“causes USB functions to be terminated.” LGE-1011, 7:40-46.
`
`Petitions also assert that Sonoda (LGE-1017) “used the SE1 state to indicate
`
`to the host computer the nature of the apparatus attached to the port.” Pet., 6. But
`
`Sonoda only discusses the SE1 state in the context of “PS/2” devices, not when
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`communicating with USB devices at all. LGE-1017, [0004]-[0005]
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`
`Finally, Petitioners assert that Cypress Semiconductor (LGE-1020) “used the
`
`SE1 state in their encore product,” without further explanation. Pet., 6. What
`
`Petitioners fail to explain is that in Cypress’ system, the SE1 state only occurred
`
`when USB was “disabled.” LGE-1020 at 24.
`
`In each example Petitioners identify as purportedly teaching SE1 “signaling”
`
`by USB devices “without interfering with USB signaling,” SE1 is used solely in
`
`contexts where normal USB communication is either not possible (Shiga, Sonoda),
`
`disabled (Cypress), or to be disabled (Casebolt). Or, in the case of Zyskowski,
`
`“SE1” is not taught at all. Further, none of the examples uses SE1 as an
`
`identification signal as in Petitioners’ proposed obviousness combinations.
`
`III. Summary Of The ’111 Patent
`The ’111 patent stems from pioneering research performed by the power
`
`supply and distribution group at Research in Motion Ltd. (“RIM,” now Blackberry
`
`Ltd.), as part of RIM’s effort to build the world’s first mobile device with a combined
`
`USB data and charging port. In the early 2000s, Blackberry launched a project to
`
`design a mobile device with a combined power and data interface. A combined
`
`charging and data interface would reduce the number of external connections and
`
`simplify printed circuit board designs for a smaller and thinner phone.
`
`The inventors noted that “[a]lthough the USB interface can be used as a power
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`interface, the USB is typically not used for that purpose by mobile devices.” LGE-
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`
`1001, 1:52-54. This was, in part, because common power sources such as AC outlets
`
`and DC car sockets were incompatible with the USB specification’s requirement 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.” Id., 1:53-59. AC outlets and DC car sockets, having no required software
`
`or hardware, simply could not participate in such enumeration processes. Id.
`
`Moreover, a mobile device attached to such a power socket via the mobile device’s
`
`USB port would be unaware, for example, that the attached USB adapter was not
`
`limited by the power limits imposed by the USB specification. LGE-1001, 1:52-67.
`
`Faced with these challenges, the inventors designed a new “USB adapter for
`
`providing a source of power to a mobile device through a USB port,” including
`
`systems and methods that, among other things, may “provid[e] an identification
`
`signal to the mobile device . . . that is operative to inform the mobile device that the
`
`USB adapter is not limited by the power limits imposed by the USB specification”
`
`as a USB host or hub would be. LGE-1001, 2:19-21, 2:50-64.
`
`In certain embodiments, to achieve these results, the inventors incorporated
`
`an identification subsystem into the adapter to output an identification signal. An
`
`“identification signal could be the communication of a single voltage on one or more
`
`of the USB data lines, different voltages on the two data lines, a series of pulses or
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`voltage level changes, or other types of electrical signals.” LGE-1001, 8:23-29.
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`
`The identification signal serves to inform a mobile device, for example, that
`
`it is coupled to a USB adapter of the inventions, that the connected power source “is
`
`not a USB limited source,” and/or that the device “can now draw power without
`
`regard to the USB specification and the USB specification imposed limits.” Id.,
`
`8:17-23. One example of such disregard of the USB specification imposed limits is
`
`allowing the device to draw more than 100 mA of current (e.g., 500 mA) from a non-
`
`USB power source (such as an AC outlet or a DC car socket) without enumeration.
`
`E.g., id.. at 9:60-65.
`
`The patent also teaches that an identification signal may be observed “by
`
`detecting the presence of an abnormal data line condition at the USB port,” and that
`
`one preferred identification signal “results from the application of voltage signals
`
`greater than 2 volts to both the D+ and D- lines in [a] USB connector.” Id. at 9:15-
`
`23. Certain dependent claims of the ’111 patent claim these specific examples. E.g.,
`
`claims 6-8.
`
`IV. The Prior Art References Differ From The ’111 Inventions
`The Petition proposes that a POSA would have arrived at the inventions set
`
`forth in the ’111 patent by starting with the docking station of Dougherty and making
`
`numerous modifications as purportedly taught by Shiga, DeJaco, Hahn, Amoni
`
`(Ground 2 only), and USB 2.0 (Ground 3 only). The Petition does not propose any
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`other means of combining Dougherty and the above-named references and does not
`
`identify any other references that would have been used in the asserted obviousness
`
`combinations. Pet. at 18-19.
`
`Even in combination, the asserted references differ greatly from the inventions
`
`claimed in the ’111 patent. An overview of Petitioners’ primary references,
`
`Dougherty and Shiga, is provided below, as background for the numerous problems
`
`with Petitioners’ proposed combination of these and other references addressed in
`
`Sections VI-VIII.
`
`A. Dougherty Overview
`1.
`Dougherty’s Docking Station
`Dougherty’s docking station is used to “expand the capabilities of a laptop
`
`computer to include a full size keyboard, a full size monitor, more serial ports, and
`
`other functionality typically associated only with desktop computing devices.” LGE-
`
`1005, 1:61-67. One way to achieve this expansion is via “port replication across a
`
`USB port.” Id., 2:24-25. Port expansion means “by plugging the laptop into [a]
`
`docking station, more serial . . . ports are available for connection to printers,
`
`scanners, full size display devices, . . . pointing devices and the like.” Id., 2:16-20.
`
`Hence, docking a laptop in a docking station via a USB connection generates
`
`“plurality of communication ports” for access to printers, scanners, displays, mice
`
`and other peripheral devices. Id., 2:25-28.
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`USB-based docking stations allegedly had the drawback of “requir[ing] the
`
`user to separately apply power to the laptop” with a power adapter such as an AC/DC
`
`power converter connected to the laptop. Id., 2:43-45. Dougherty’s docking station
`
`allegedly overcame this shortcoming and presented “a USB based docking station
`
`that has the capability of both operating the laptop computer and charging the battery
`
`in the laptop computer while docked without the need to plug in a separate power
`
`connection . . . .” Id., 2:45-50.
`
`Dougherty teaches that the primary reason for docking a laptop is to allow it
`
`to access the full functionality available to a desktop computer. E.g., id., 1:61-67
`
`(“Docking . . . may expand the capabilities of the laptop computer to include . . .
`
`functionality typically associated only with desktop computing devices.”), 2:9-17
`
`(using port replication to make more ports “available for connection to printers,
`
`scanners, full size display devices . . . and the like”).
`
`Dougherty also acknowledges that to support USB-based port expansion, the
`
`laptop and docking station must be able to communicate with each other via USB
`
`protocols in order to operate peripheral USB devices connected to the USB based
`
`docking station. Id., 2:23-32 (“[a] user connects a laptop, via a USB connection, to
`
`a port replication device which generates plurality of communication ports,” and
`
`“port replication is accomplished across the USB connector”), 2:38-39 (“USB
`
`expansion connection”); Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 54-59. For this reason, Dougherty’s “laptop
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`computer 100 of the preferred embodiment does not modify operation of the serial
`
`communication conductors 126 of the USB protocol” (i.e., the D+ and D- data lines).
`
`Id. at 4:67-5:3.
`
`2.
`Dougherty’s Alleged Improvement Over Prior Art
`As noted above, Dougherty allegedly improves prior art USB-based docking
`
`stations by allowing the docking station to provide power to the laptop using the
`
`USB connection, rather than a separate power adapter, while at the same time
`
`maintaining the ability to communicate over USB that is the purpose of the USB
`
`docking station. LGE-1005, 2:45-50 (“it would be desirable to have a USB based
`
`docking station that has the capability of both operating the laptop computer and
`
`charging the batteries in the laptop computer while docked without the need to plug
`
`in a separate power connection”); see also, e.g., 2:55-58 (“The problems noted above
`
`are solved in large part by a laptop computer and related docking station adapted to
`
`supply power from the docking station to the laptop computer across the USB
`
`connection.”).
`
`Dougherty’s docking station is designed to supply power at up to 18V and
`
`2.5A when the laptop is in full operation over the VBUS and GND power lines. Id.
`
`at 7:20-55. Dougherty teaches the use of the VBUS and GND lines to send the
`
`communications necessary “to establish whether laptop computer [] is capable of
`
`receiving power from the docking station.” LGE-1005, 5:3-7. This communication
`
`10497347
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`takes place after a handshaking (or enumeration) process under “normal USB
`
`protocols.” Id., 5:39-6:17. Dougherty teaches that the USB communication lines
`
`maintain their standard operation:
`
`Referring to FIG. 1, the laptop computer 100 of the preferred
`
`embodiment does not modify operation of the serial
`communication conductors 126 of the USB protocol.
`LGE-1005, 4:67-5-7; see also id. at 6:13-18 & Fig. 1 (explai
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
