`
`
`
`
`
`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