Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 10
`Entered: August 9, 2018
`
`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 INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`——————
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`——————
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, JON B. TORNQUIST, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 10
`Entered: August 9, 2018
`
`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 INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`——————
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`——————
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, JON B. TORNQUIST, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`A.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`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”)1 filed a Petition for inter
`partes review (Paper 1, “Pet.”) of claims 1–3, 6–8, 12, 14, and 16–18 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,239,111 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’111 patent”). Fundamental
`Innovation Systems International LLC (“Patent Owner”)2, filed a
`Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. Paper 6.
`We have discretion to institute an inter partes review when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Applying that standard, we decline to institute an inter partes review based
`on the information presented.3
`
`
`1 Petitioner identifies 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 as the real parties in interest.
`Pet. 1.
`2 Patent Owner states that it is the owner of the ’111 patent, that
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International Holdings LLC is its parent
`entity, and that it has contracted with TnT IP, LLC to manage its patent
`portfolio. Paper 4, 1.
`3 Patent Owner argues that we may not consider the Petition because
`Petitioner did not name all the real parties in interest pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 312(a)(2), and that we should exercise our discretion to dismiss the
`petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See Prelim. Resp. 19–26. We need not
`resolve these issues because we deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`B.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The parties identify the following related matters pursuant to
`37 § C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2):4
`District court cases: Fundamental Innovation Systems International
`LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00145 (E.D. Tex.);
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Huawei Investment &
`Holding Co. et al., No. 2:16-cv-01424-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Fundamental
`Innovation Systems International LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No.
`2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Fundamental Innovation Systems
`International LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al., No. 3:17-cv-01827-N (N.D. Tex.).
`Inter partes reviews: IPR Nos. 2018-00460, 2018-00461, 2018-00487,
`2018-00493, and 2018-00508.
`
`2.
`
`USB 2.0 SPECIFICATION AND THE SE1 STATE
`
`By way of background, the ’111 patent relates to the USB 2.0
`specification,5 an industry-wide serial bus standard, which “describes the
`bus attributes, the protocol definition, types of transactions, bus
`management, and the programming interface required to design and build
`systems and peripherals that are compliant with this standard.” Ex. 1010, 1.
`Figure 4-2 of the USB 2.0 specification, reproduced below, shows a
`USB-compliant cable:
`
`
`4 See Pet. 1–2; Paper 4, 1–3.
`5 COMPAQ COMPUT. CORP. ET AL., UNIVERSAL SERIAL BUS SPECIFICATION,
`REV. 2.0 (2000) [hereinafter USB 2.0]. Ex. 1010.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 4-2 depicts four conductors: VBUS and GND deliver power to
`devices, and D+ and D− are a twisted pair of signal conductors. See Ex.
`1010, 18, 86, 94, 102.
`The USB 2.0 specification designates “SE1” as a state in which D+
`and D− conductors are both high (i.e., at a voltage greater than 0.8 V). See
`id. at 123, 145. The specification states that “[l]ow-speed and full-speed
`USB drivers must never ‘intentionally’ generate an SE1 on the bus.” Id. at
`123; see also id. at 148 n.4 (“A high-speed driver must never ‘intentionally’
`generate a signal in which both D+ and D− are driven to a level above
`200 mV. The current-steering design of a high-speed driver should naturally
`preclude this possibility.”).
`Nevertheless, the specification contemplates that an SE1 state may
`sometimes occur on the bus; for example, when a device is attached to a port
`on a USB hub, “a noise event on the bus can cause the attached device to
`detect a reset condition on the bus after 2.5 μs of . . . SE1 on the bus.” Id. at
`316. For this reason, the specification requires constant monitoring of “the
`port’s single-ended receivers to detect a disconnect event,” noting that “[i]f
`the hub does not place the port in the disconnect state before the device
`resets, . . . [t]his can cause systems errors that are very difficult to isolate and
`correct.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`
`3.
`
`THE ’111 PATENT (EX. 1001)
`
`The ’111 patent discloses “a USB adapter for providing a source of
`power to a mobile device through a USB port.” Ex. 1001, 2:35–36.
`According to the patent, those in the industry understood that one could use
`a USB interface for both data and power; however, mobile devices typically
`did not use the USB interface for that purpose. Id. at 1:52–54. This is
`because USB devices, according to the USB specification, must “participate
`in a host-initiated process called enumeration in order to be [USB]
`compliant” in drawing power from the USB interface, but “alternate power
`sources such as conventional AC outlets and DC car sockets” were “not
`capable of participating in enumeration.” Id. at 1:54–67.
`To allow mobile devices to be recharged using a broader range of
`power sources, the ’111 patent describes a USB adapter for providing power
`to a mobile device without first participating in enumeration. Id. at 9:1–14.
`Figure 2 of the patent, reproduced below with Petitioner’s color annotations
`(Pet. 7), is a schematic diagram of such a USB adapter coupled to an
`exemplary mobile device:
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts USB adapter 100 (red), which couples mobile device 10
`(blue) to various types of power sockets, 100N, 110D, 110B, or 110. Id. at
`6:65–67, Certificate of Correction 1. The figure shows plug adapters 114N,
`114D, 114B, and 114 for connecting to each of these sockets, respectively.
`Id. at 7:17–22, Certificate of Correction 1. The plug adapters allow USB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`Adapter 100 to receive energy from various local or specialized power
`sources, such as North American power socket 110N (115 VAC), 12 VDC
`automobile power sockets, air power sockets, etc. Id. at 7:49–52.
`USB adapter 100 comprises primary USB connector 102, power
`converter 104, plug unit 106, and identification subsystem 108. Id. at 6:57–
`60. According to the ’111 patent, when one connects USB adapter 100 to
`mobile device 10 (via USB connector 102 on the adapter side and USB
`connector 54 on the mobile device side), identification subsystem 108
`provides an identification signal to mobile device 10, indicating that the
`power source is not subject to the power limitations imposed by the USB
`specification. Id. at 8:17–25, 9:3–8, 35–39.
`In the preferred embodiment, this identification signal is “the
`application of voltage signals greater than 2 volts to both the D+ and D−
`lines in the USB connector.”6 Id. at 9:21–23. If mobile device 10 detects
`this identification signal, it determines that the device connected to its USB
`connector 54 “is not a typical USB host or hub,” and that it is USB adapter
`100. Id. at 9:35–39. Thus, mobile device 10 can charge the battery or
`otherwise use power provided by power adapter 100, without waiting for
`USB enumeration. Id. at 9:39–42, 9:60–65. Otherwise, if mobile device 10
`detects that both D+ and D− lines are not greater than 2 volts, mobile device
`10 detects that it is connected to a USB host or hub, and signals the
`connected host or hub to initiate the enumeration process, and it can power
`or charge the battery according to the power limits imposed by the USB
`specification. Id. at 9:43–55, 10:1–6; see also id., Fig. 3.
`
`
`6 This corresponds to the SE1 state on the USB data bus. See Ex. 1010, 123.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS AND ASSERTED GROUNDS OF
`4.
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–3, 6–8, 12, 14, and
`16–18 of the ’111 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006).7 Pet. 5.
`Independent claim 1 is as follows:
`1. A Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) adapter for providing
`power to a mobile device through a USB port, comprising:
`a plug unit configured to receive energy from a power
`socket;
`a power converter coupled to the plug unit, the power
`converter being configured to regulate the received
`energy from the power socket to generate a power output;
`an identification subsystem configured to generate an
`identification signal, wherein the identification signal is
`configured to indicate to the mobile device that the power
`socket is not a USB host or hub; and
`a USB connector coupled to the power converter and the
`identification subsystem, the USB connector being
`configured to couple the power output and the
`identification signal to the mobile device.
`Ex. 1001 at 11:60–12:8 (emphasis of key phrase added).
`Independent claim 17 recites a “method for providing energy to a
`mobile device,” using an adapter substantially similar to claim 1, that
`includes “generating an identification signal that is configured to indicate to
`the mobile device that the power socket is not a USB host or hub.” Id. at
`13:1–13. Independent claim 18 recites a USB adapter, substantially similar
`to claims 1 and 17, but written in “means plus function” form. See id. at
`14:1–11. It includes, among other limitations, “means for generating an
`
`7 Because the ’111 patent was filed before March 16, 2013, the version of 35
`U.S.C. § 103 that existed prior to the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act
`applies. See Pub. L. No. 112-29, sec. 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. 284, 293 (2011).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`identification signal that indicates to the mobile device that the power socket
`is not a USB hub or host.” Id. at 14:7–9.
`The remaining challenged claims, 2, 3, 6–8, 12, 14, and 16, depend
`directly or indirectly from claim 1. See id. at 12:9–67.
`In the table below is a summary of the grounds in the Petition:
`References
`Basis
`Challenged Claims
`Dougherty,8 DeJaco,9 Hahn,10 and Shiga11 § 103(a)
`1–3, 6, 8, 16, and 17
`Dougherty, DeJaco, Hahn, Shiga, and
`§ 103(a)
`12 and 14
`Amoni12
`Dougherty, DeJaco, Hahn, Shiga, and
`USB 2.013
`
`7 and 18
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Pet. 18.
`
`C. ANALYSIS
`
`1.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner argues that a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time
`of invention, “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.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–24).
`Petitioner also states that “a person with less education but more experience,
`
`8 Dougherty et al., US 7,360,004 B2 (issued Apr. 15, 2008). Ex. 1005.
`9 DeJaco et al., US 6,745,024 B1 (issued June 1, 2004). Ex. 1006.
`10 Hahn et al., US 5,973,948 (issued Oct. 26, 1999). Ex. 1007.
`11 Shiga, US 6,625,738 B1 (issued Sept. 23, 2003). Ex. 1008.
`12 Amoni et al., US 5,884,086 (issued Mar. 16, 1999). Ex. 1009.
`13 Supra note 5.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`or more education but less experience, would also meet the relevant
`standard.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 23). For its Preliminary Response, Patent
`Owner does not contest this as the applicable level of skill. Prelim. Resp.
`19. Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary
`skill in the art for the purpose of this Decision.
`
`2.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`We need only construe claim terms “that are in controversy, and only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999)). Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any claim
`constructions, and we determine that it is not necessary to construe any
`claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.
`
`ASSERTED UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1–3, 6, 8, 16, AND 17 AS
`3.
`OBVIOUS OVER DOUGHERTY IN VIEW OF USB 2.0 AND SHIGA
`
`a.
`
`Dougherty
`
`Dougherty discloses a method and system for powering a laptop
`across a USB interface when it is docked with a docking station. Ex. 1005,
`1:21–26. Figure 1 of Dougherty, reproduced below with Petitioner’s color
`annotations (Pet. 20), is a schematic of the disclosed system:
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, the system of Dougherty includes laptop computer
`100 (orange) which includes USB bus serial communication lines 126 and
`USB power rail 138, and docking station 200 (green). Laptop 100 and
`docking station 200 are connected via USB connectors 136 (red) and 236
`(blue). Ex. 1005, 3:44–5:7.
`In order to establish a powered connection between a battery-powered
`laptop 100 and docking station 200, laptop 100 first identifies docking
`station 200, via normal USB handshaking protocol across data lines 126, as
`a device capable of providing external power. Id. at 5:39–52. Laptop 100
`then loads a driver, which turns off the laptop’s ability to provide 5 V to
`USB power rails 138. Id. at 5:53–6:3. When this occurs, the laptop is in the
`same state it would be in if it had no battery or the battery were completely
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`discharged. Id. at 6:4–10. Next, docking station docking logic 234
`establishes whether laptop 100 is capable of receiving power, by attempting
`to establish communications across power rails 138 with a reactive signaling
`circuit in laptop docking logic 134. Id. at 6:10–7:2; see also id., Fig. 2
`(depicting logic 134 and logic 234 in more detail). If so, docking logic 234
`ramps the voltage in power rails 138 up to 18 V in order to charge laptop
`battery 132. Id. at 7:3–19.
`
`b.
`
`Shiga (Ex. 1008)
`
`Shiga describes a system for turning on a host computer’s power
`supply using an input device, such as a keyboard, via a USB interface. Ex.
`1008, 1:13–19. Shiga’s Figure 1, which we reproduce below with
`Petitioner’s color annotations (Pet. 33), shows an embodiment of the system:
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`Figure 1 depicts host computer 1 (red), which includes USB chip 2, wake-up
`means 3, switching means 4 (depicted as a relay), and power supply 5, and
`sub-power supply 6. Id. at 4:12–14, 4:54. Keyboard 11 (green), containing
`USB chip 12, is connected via USB cable 9 (purple) to host computer 1. Id.
`at 4:47–53.
`The system operates as follows: When power supply 5 is off,
`keyboard 11 is connected as shown in the figure, via relay 4, to wake-up
`means 3, which draws a small amount of power from sub-power supply 6.
`See id. at 6:4–34. When a user activates a power-on key on keyboard 11,
`chip 12 sends an SE1 signal to host 1, which turns on main power supply 5.
`Id. at 6:35–7:15. When main power supply 5 is on, relay 4 connects
`keyboard 11 to USB chip 2, thus enabling USB data transmissions. Id. at
`7:16–30.
`
`c.
`
`Analysis
`
`Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to modify the laptop
`of Dougherty (as modified by DeJaco14 and Hahn15) by replacing
`Dougherty’s elaborate communication between the laptop and docking
`station with the simple use of an identifying SE1 state as taught by Shiga.
`See Pet. 34–36. According to Petitioner, “the docking station in Dougherty
`
`
`14 DeJaco discloses a wireless modem for laptops. Ex. 1006, 4:55–5:1.
`Petitioner argues that Dougherty’s laptop, as modified by DeJaco, is a
`“mobile device” as recited in the claims. See Pet. 49; see also id. at 22–25.
`15 Hahn discloses a universal AC-to-DC power supply with interchangeable
`plugs for use with different AC wall sockets. Ex. 1007, abstract, 2:45–49,
`3:55–57. Petitioner argues that Dougherty’s docking station as modified by
`Hahn is an adapter that includes a “plug unit” and “power converter” as
`recited in the claims. See Pet. 42–45; see also id. at 25–32.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`would be modified to include a USB chip that generates an SE1 state for
`identification purposes.” Id. at 35.16 The SE1 state “would indicate to
`Dougherty’s laptop that it is coupled to a docking station capable of
`providing power at 18 volts and 2.5 amps, which is more power than a USB
`host or hub is permitted to provide.” Id. at 50. Thus, the SE1 state would
`act as an “identification signal,” as recited in claim 1, to indicate to the
`laptop (mobile device) that the docking station’s power socket is not a USB
`host or hub. Id.
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`had reason to make this modification because, according to Shiga, the SE1
`state “is not a USB standard mode,” and therefore “can be easily
`distinguished from USB standard data signals.” Id. at 34–35 (quoting Ex.
`1008, 6:48–58). According to Petitioner, Dougherty itself teaches the
`benefit of reducing the time and complexity of coupling a laptop to a
`docking station, and one of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized
`that applying Shiga’s teachings to Dougherty accomplishes both goals in a
`simple and straight-forward manner,” given the ease with which the SE1
`state can be distinguished from USB standard data signals. Id. at 35 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 2:45–51, 5:38–52; Ex. 1003 ¶ 124).
`Petitioner argues that the modification would have produced operable
`and predictable results, id. at 36, and “would have been a logical and trivial
`alternative for signaling between Dougherty’s laptop and docking station,
`
`
`16 Petitioner argues, however, that the “combination of Dougherty and Shiga
`permits, but does not require, physical incorporation of elements.” Pet. 36
`(citing In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012), In re Etter, 756
`F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); Ex. 1003 ¶ 128).
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`rather than the complex and time-consuming handshake protocol of
`Dougherty,” id. at 35. According to Petitioner, “to the extent that any
`modification would have been needed to the teachings of Dougherty to
`accommodate the teachings of Shiga, such modifications would have been
`within the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 126).
`In sum, Petitioner argues that the modification amounts to “combining
`prior art elements (a USB chip which generates an SE1 state as taught by
`Shiga and Dougherty’s docking station and laptop) according to
`conventional methods to yield predictable and beneficial results (reduced
`complexity and latency in providing power).” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 127).
`Based on the evidence presented, however, Petitioner’s proposed
`modification of Dougherty is more than the straightforward combination of
`prior art elements with predictable results. For example, Patent Owner
`argues, and we agree, that Petitioner has not shown how the modified laptop
`and docking station of Dougherty would predictably handle SE1 signals in
`the course of normal USB communication. See Prelim. Resp. 2, 34–36, 46–
`47. While the USB 2.0 specification states that USB drivers must never
`“intentionally” produce an SE1 state, see Ex. 1010, 123, Patent Owner
`persuasively argues that connected USB devices may still unintentionally
`generate an SE1 state on the bus, and that the USB 2.0 standard teaches that
`a laptop must be prepared to respond to such an “unintentional” SE1 state
`when it occurs. See Prelim. Resp. 46 (citing Ex. 1010, 316); see also Ex.
`1003 ¶ 40 (Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Wood characterizes an SE1 state as “an
`abnormal data condition”). Petitioner has not explained how the modified
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`laptop and docking station of Dougherty would handle these “unintentional”
`SE1 signals, or distinguish them from SE1 signals from the USB chip.
`Nor has Petitioner shown that replacing the USB enumeration in
`Dougherty with an SE1 signal would allow the docking station in
`Dougherty’s modified system to act successfully as a USB adapter. See
`Prelim. Resp. 48–49. For example, Petitioner does not explain how the
`laptop and docking station would identify each other, or correctly route USB
`transmissions to attached USB devices, if one removes the handshaking
`protocols required for USB enumeration from Dougherty. See Ex. 1010, 244
`(“A USB device must be configured before its function(s) may be used.”).
`For the above reasons, Petitioner is not reasonably likely, based on
`this record, to prevail at trial in showing that claims 1–3, 6, 8, 16, and 17 of
`the ’111 patent would have been obvious over the combination of
`Dougherty, DeJaco, Hahn, and Shiga.
`
`ASSERTED UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 12 AND 14 AS OBVIOUS
`4.
`OVER DOUGHERTY IN VIEW OF DEJACO, HAHN, SHIGA, AND AMONI
`
`Claims 12 and 14 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and
`further recite “an auxiliary USB connector.” Ex. 1001, 12:46–47, 12:52–54.
`Petitioner alleges that Amoni teaches “auxiliary powered USB ports,” and
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason “to combine
`the teachings of Amoni with Dougherty as modified by Hahn to produce the
`obvious, beneficial, and predictable result of equipping Dougherty’s docking
`station with auxiliary USB ports/connectors for communicating with the
`powering peripheral USB devices.” Pet. 70–71; see also id. at 71–77.
`As we determine above, Petitioner is not reasonably likely to prevail
`on this record in showing that independent claim 1 would have been obvious
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`over the combination of Dougherty, DeJaco, Hahn, and Shiga. Petitioner
`does not present any additional argument or information with respect to
`these dependent claims that cures the deficiencies discussed above regarding
`Petitioner’s challenge to independent claim 1. Thus, for the reasons stated
`above, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of success in
`challenging these dependent claims.
`
`ASSERTED UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 7 AND 18 AS OBVIOUS
`5.
`OVER DOUGHERTY IN VIEW OF DEJACO, HAHN, SHIGA, AND USB 2.0
`
`Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites “a hard-wired
`connection of a voltage level to one or more data lines in the USB
`connector.” Ex. 1001, 12:30–32. Claim 18, which is independent, recites
`means-plus-function limitations similar to the limitations of claim 1,
`including the additional limitation of independent claim 7. Id. at 14:1–11;
`Pet. 85–88.17 Petitioner relies on USB 2.0 solely for teaching these
`additional limitations in claims 7 and 18. Pet. 82–85, 87.
`As we determine above, Petitioner is not reasonably likely to prevail
`on this record in showing that independent claim 1 would have been obvious
`over the combination of Dougherty, DeJaco, Hahn, and Shiga. Petitioner
`does not present any additional argument or information with respect to
`these claims that cures the deficiencies discussed above regarding
`Petitioner’s challenge to independent claim 1. Thus, for the reasons stated
`
`
`17 Claim 18 recites “means for generating an identification signal that
`indicates to the mobile device that the power socket is not a USB hub or
`host.” Ex. 1001, 14:7–9. According to Petitioner, the corresponding
`structure in the specification includes “a USB controller or a hard-wired
`connection of a voltage level, or an equivalent thereof.” Pet. 87.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`above, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of success in
`challenging these dependent claims.
`
`6.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the
`Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that there is not a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Therefore, pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a), we decline to institute an inter partes review.
`
`D. ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is
`DENIED, and no inter partes review is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00495
`Patent 7,239,111 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David L. McCombs
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Gregory P. Huh
`gregory.huh.ipr@haynesboone.com
`David M. O’Dell
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Adam C. Fowles
`adam.fowles.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Hong Zhong
`hzhong@irell.com
`Michael Fleming
`mfleming@irell.com
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
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
