`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
`
`