`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01152 (Patent 8,698,558 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01153 (Patent 8,698,558 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01154 (Patent 8,698,558 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01240 (Patent 8,698,558 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 28, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JAMES M. DOWD, ESQ.
`RICHARD GOLDENBERG, ESQ.
`DAVID CAVANAUGH, ESQ.
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`213-443-5309
`James.dowd@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOSEPH M. SAUER, ESQ.
`DAVID B. COCHRAN, ESQ.
`Jones Day
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44144-1190
`216-586-3939
`jmsauer@jonesday.com
`dcochran@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, October
`
`28, 2019, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Good afternoon. This is a Trial and Hearing
`
`for Case Numbers IPR 2018-01152, 2018-01153, 2018-01154 and finally
`2018-01240, for Patent Number 8,698,558. Intel Corporation is the
`Petitioner, and the Patent Owner is Qualcomm Incorporated.
`I'm Judge Jefferson, and with me remotely are Judges Fishman and
`Howard. At this time we'll start with Counsel introductions, and please
`introduce anyone in the gallery or at the Counsel's table. Please step to the
`microphone just so we make sure we get everything recorded.
`MR. DOWD: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm Jim Dowd, on behalf of
`Intel, and I'm from Wilmer-Hale. With me today live are Richard
`Goldenberg, and Dave Cavanaugh in the gallery, and I believe Brad Waugh,
`who is General Counsel at Intel, has dialed in.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay. And for Qualcomm?
`MR. SAUER: Hi, Your Honor. Joe Sauer for Patent Owner,
`Qualcomm, and with me at counsel table is my colleague Dave Cochran, and
`we have Alan Heaton helping us with the slides, and we have a number of
`representatives from Qualcomm in the gallery today too.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Welcome.
`MR. SAUER: If I may approach so you have a copy of our slides.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Certainly. Make sure that you have a copy for
`the Court Reporter. Before we begin I'll just remind the parties that the
`hearing is open to the public and a full transcript will be made part of the
`record. As you know in our trial order, each side has 90 minutes, the party
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`bearing the burden of proof can have a rebuttal, as well as in our rules now,
`the Patent Owner. Please let us know before you begin how much time
`you'd like to reserve of your 90 minutes.
`And for clarity of the transcript, and for the benefit of our Judges who
`are appearing remotely, we have your slides that you’ve sent to us earlier,
`please refer to any exhibit number, or page number, slide or citation. It
`makes it easier for the record, as well for our Judges to follow along.
`We are in a public hearing and obviously there are no objections, and
`if there any issues you have you can bring them up, or certainly answer any
`questions that we might pose to you on rebuttal.
`Petitioner, you may begin. And how much time would you like to
`reserve for rebuttal?
`MR. DOWD: Thank you, Your Honor. We were planning to reserve
`15 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Fifteen minutes. Okay. I will do my best to
`run the time clock, and I keep time myself, so I will let you know if things
`get a little off, how much you have left.
`MR. DOWD: And, Your Honor, one thing just to note at the outset,
`and I'll talk about this in a moment, but the claims divide into two groups,
`one our linear amplifier set of claims, and then the other is a switcher set of
`claims.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Mm-hmm.
`MR. DOWD: My plan is to address the linear amplifier set, and Mr.
`Goldenberg is going to address the switcher set, if that's permissible.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay. It's up to you to decide how you divide
`up that time.
`MR. DOWD: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: And I think if we can make sure that all our
`parties can hear, our Judges, this audio, is everything okay?
`JUDGE HOWARD: This is Judge Howard, I can hear fine.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: I'm Judge Fishman, and I can hear fine too. It's
`just the fact as I've mentioned, I'm having some microphone issues from
`time to time, so let me know if my line is breaking up on your end.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: I think it's already starting to show the same
`clipping -- the clipping that we have. We will do our best to go slowly, and
`potentially I'll relay questions if Judge Fishman has an issue. We are also
`getting some feedback, some echoing going on I think. Judge Howard, I
`think if you turn off your mic.
`JUDGE HOWARD: Yes, I just muted it.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: There you go. All right, with that in mind,
`you may begin when you're ready. I've put the full time up, and if there's a -
`- the warning will go off in 20 minutes and you -- at 20 minutes to spare,
`and giving you five minutes to wrap up.
`MR. DOWD: Thank you.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay?
`MR. DOWD: Perfect.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: You may begin when you're ready.
`MR. DOWD: May I proceed?
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`MR. DOWD: Okay. Thank you. So, we're here today on the 558
`Patent, and Petitioner has filed four petitions demonstrating that all of the
`claims of the 558 Patent are invalid. Now, the 558 Patent is generally
`directed to a hybrid supply generator, and a hybrid supply generator
`combines two components. There's a linear amplifier component and a
`switcher component.
`And accordingly, the patent has two groups of claims. I'm now on
`slide 3. One group is directed to each of these two different components, so
`claims 1 through 14 are directed to the envelope amplifier side of a hybrid
`supply generator, while claims 15 to 20 are directed to the switcher.
`To help organize the material on slide 4 we have prepared a table that
`breaks down the petitions by which group of claims they associate with, so
`roughly petitions 1152, 1153 and 1240 relate to the envelope amplifier
`claims, and the petition 1154 is related to the switcher claims. And as I
`noted before at the outset, I plan to address the envelope amplifier claims,
`and my Co-Counsel, Mr. Goldenberg, plans to address the other claims.
`Moving to slide 5, we've also broken down the prior art and the
`combinations of prior art by which petition and which claims they relate to.
`One thing to note here is that with respect to claims 12 and 14, both of which
`are in the linear amplifier group. The Patent Owner has conceded that these
`claims are invalid over the Chu reference. Chu was asserted in the petition
`to anticipate, and that has now been conceded.
`The reason I'm pausing on that is that the difference between those
`two claims, and the rest of the claims in the linear amplifier group, is those
`two claims do not recite a boost converter, and the others do. And so
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`essentially, from our point of view what that means is, Chu is fairly
`undisputed, teaches everything in these claims other than a boost converter.
`And the question really is, would it have been obvious to modify the Chu
`hybrid amplifier such that it took advantage of a boost converter like that
`disclosed in Choi?
`So, let me turn to the alleged invention, and I'm now on slide 7, and
`we're looking at Figure 3 of the 558 Patent, and on the left-hand side,
`highlighted in purple, item 170A is the envelope amplifier, and that's the
`subject of the claims that I'm addressing. On the right-hand side in yellow is
`the switcher which Mr. Goldenberg will address.
`And what you can see is, there's an envelope signal that comes in from
`the left, the envelope amplifier uses that signal in combination with voltage,
`which is supplied at the top to produce a -- what the claim refers to as a
`second supply voltage, which is an output for node E. And the focus of the
`claims is on the voltage sources that are shown at the top. There is a Vbat
`which goes into transistor 320 at the source, and there is Vboost which goes
`into transistor 318. And those transistors select between those two.
`Now, there is -- and I'll come to this in a moment, there is a claimed
`construction dispute with respect to certain of the claims, and it relates to
`that component there, the ability to have either the Vbattery as a first supply
`or the Vboost as a second supply.
`Let me turn to the claims. On slide 8 we have claims 6 and 7, and
`claim 6 is representative of a first group of claims, claim 7 is representative -
`- dependent claim 7 is representative of a second group of claims. And the
`first group is a group of claims that does not require selective boost, and I'll
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`explain why, but in this claim the main limitation that's at issue is this
`limitation relating to a P channel metal oxide semiconductor, or PMOS
`transistor, that has -- and I'm skipping ahead -- a source receiving the
`boosted supply voltage, or the first supply voltage.
`So, in claim 6, that's really the question, would it be obvious to have
`added a boosted supply voltage to the Chu reference?
`Claim 7 adds an additional limitation, it depends from claim 6, and it
`adds the requirement that the supply generator is operative to generate the
`second supply voltage based on the envelope signal, and either the boosted
`supply voltage, or the first supply voltage. And what that adds is what the
`Patent Owner calls the selective boost requirement.
`Now, note here, that is different from how claim 6 recites the second
`supply voltage. In claim 6 the second supply voltage is recited as generate a
`second supply voltage for the power amplifier based on the envelope signal
`and the boosted supply voltage. There is no additional ability to generate the
`second supply voltage based on the first supply voltage. And that's the
`difference between these two claims. Claim 6 does not require selective
`boost, claim 7 does.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Counsel, before you move on, For lack of a
`better word, explore with me the difference in the scope between 6 or 7.
`Claim 6 says that you can generate this first controlling the signal along with
`a source receiving the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage. Is
`it your understanding that if that is the -- that "or" is simply one of those has
`to be present, and therefore, in essence, and if there was a circuit that lacked
`the boost converter, we see as much as derived from the battery itself
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`anyway, but the boost converter, that that would meet the limitations of that
`claim?
`MR. DOWD: Thank you, Your Honor. Let me address that directly.
`The "or" I think you have it correct in terms of the "or" requiring
`alternatives, or just requires A or B, it doesn’t require A and B. Here,
`specifically, if you look on left in Figure 3, what we are talking about in
`terms of the P Channel, or the PMOS transistor, is this transistor 314 that's
`shown just next to signal R1.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay.
`MR. DOWD: And it's the top, the top terminal of that transistor is the
`source as a PMOS. And what the claim is reciting is that on that source you
`can have either the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage. And
`that's all that the claim is talking about, the source of that transistor can
`either be one or the other of the voltages.
`Now, above that in claim 6, it recited that the second supply voltage
`must be based on the envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage, so in
`the example that we are advancing, as our combination, why this is obvious,
`we would say that Chu would be modified such that its PMOS transistor
`receives the boosted supply voltage, and therefore would meet the first
`requirement in the claim of a second supply voltage generated based on the
`envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage. And it would also meet the
`PMOS transistor limitation because it simply recites or, which is on
`alternative or the other.
`So that's in a nutshell, the claim construction dispute. And I'll come in
`a second in a second to what turns on that, because it turns out --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`JUDGE HOWARD: I'm having a little bit of a problem though,
`understanding what the difference is between the language in claim 6, and
`the language in claim 7. I understand claim 7 talks -- has the word "either"
`which isn't in claim 6. But to me, it looks like they're both claiming the
`same thing, in that you can have either, that it's just the boosted supply
`voltage or the first supply voltage, and the "either" is just really reflecting
`back to the "and". So that the (inaudible) can let you know where the
`parenthesis go. So, I don't see this thin differentiation argument that you're
`trying to make.
`MR. DOWD: So the difference between the two claims is targeting
`where this or is. In claim 6, we're focused on the second supply voltage and
`the requirement for how the second supply voltage is generated. And there
`it's based on the envelope signal and the boosted voltage.
`The difference between that and claim 7 is, in claim 7, it recites that
`the second supply voltage is based on the envelope signal and either the
`boosted supply voltage, or the first supply voltage. That's the difference
`between these two claims, and if I can just --
`JUDGE HOWARD: I'm trying to see why 7 would be requiring
`selectivity, and why claim 6 not. To me they look like the exact same, that
`it's having the same "or" and whether we require that or to be selective or
`not, the language is all the same.
`MR. DOWD: Well, in fact, if I can, maybe I can address that, and
`then I do have some slides that address that later in my presentation and I'll
`come back to it, but just to try to elucidate that, the difference is that the "or"
`in claim 6 is only with reference to the source of the PMOS transistor and so
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`a PMOS transistor that receives either the boosted or the first supply would
`be enough to satisfy the transistor requirement. That is a separate
`requirement from how you generate the second supply voltage, it's the
`second supply voltage generation that claim 7 is talking about, and there it
`requires generation based on either/or, either the boosted or the first, and
`that's what Patent Owner is calling the selective boost.
`So, if I can, I'll table that for a minute. I will come back to that in
`context because there's some history behind this that happened in a District
`Court case in San Diego, and I do want to address that as well.
`But if I can turn to slide 10, just briefly, I noted already that the Patent
`Owner did not contest that claims 12 and 14 were anticipated, and then on
`slide 11, what this does, is it tries to capture what turn on this claim
`construction difference, and really the headline is, what turns on this dispute
`is only which grounds invalidate the claims.
`So, if Petitioner is correct, if we're right, claims 6, 8, 10 and 13 are
`invalid over the combination of Chu plus Choi alone. If the Patent Owner is
`correct, and the selective boost is required for all claims, then all of the
`amplifier claims are invalid over Chu plus Choi, in view of Myers which
`specifically teaches selecting between two different voltage sources.
`So, although there's an interesting fight about the claim construction,
`ultimately the claims are invalid whichever construction prevails, and the
`question is simply: Is it a two-reference combination or a three-reference
`combination?
`And so with that I do want to turn to the dispute, and here, there's
`really no dispute that all of the limitations of these claims, claims 1 through
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`11 and 13 are disclosed in the prior art references identified in the petition.
`Instead, the dispute centers on whether a person of ordinary skill would have
`been motivated to have made the combination, made the combination of Chu
`and Choi, or made the combination of Chu, Choi and Myers.
`So, I want to briefly address how these prior art references, Chu, Choi
`and Myers, teach the limitations of the claim, and then spend the bulk of my
`time focused on why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated
`to make the combination as we've proposed it.
`Here on slide 13, are the two primary figures, Chu is on the left, Choi
`is on the right, and in Chu you can see, in purple, is the linear amplifier that
`maps directly to the linear amplifier of Figure 3 of the patent. There is,
`where you see Vbat coming in on the source that is a PMOS transistor, it has
`Vbattery on the source.
`On the right-hand side is the Choi reference, the purple triangle is a
`linear amplifier, there's no dispute about that, that the top of the rail there is
`battery, and what's shown is battery voltage declining over time, from about
`4.2 volts down to about 2.8 volts. And what Chu teaches is, as the battery
`voltage declines as the battery runs low, you can use a regulator or it actually
`-- it explicitly calls it a boost converter, to generate a constant output to the
`linear amplifier, in this case about 5 volts.
`And so the proposed combination is simply you would, instead of
`having the battery voltage on the PMOS transistor in Chu, you would have
`the output of a boost converter as Choi teaches, and for the reasons that Choi
`teaches, which I'll get to in a moment.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`You know, there's one claim that's means plus function, there we also
`combine that -- that's claim 10, we also say Hanington provides the specific
`structure that's disclosed. There's no dispute about whether Hanington has
`the correct disclosure.
`If I go to slide 14, the only dispute here, is really whether you would
`have been -- whether it was obvious to implement Chu with a boost
`converter, or whether that's truly something inventive, and we would say, it
`was obvious.
`On slide 15 I'll just briefly walk through this. Slide 15 demonstrates
`where all of the elements of the envelope amplifier can be found in the Chu
`reference, because there's really no dispute about the fact that they're
`disclosed, I'm going to move past that quickly.
`Similarly, slide 16, compares the Choi reference to Figure 3 which is
`an embodiment of the claims, and again, the Choi reference discloses a boost
`converter which is shown in light-blue that is the same as the boost converter
`of Figure 3 of the patent.
`And here, at slide 17, and we kind of focused on that teaching.
`So, at slide 18, this is how we would map the claim against the Chu
`and the Choi references representative of claim 6. The Chu reference has
`everything other than claims that recited a boost converter, Choi teaches that
`adding a boost converter will give you benefits both in terms of efficiency
`and in terms of preventing against the degraded performance as the battery
`degrades, they call that the linearity of the output, and I'll come back to that
`in a moment. And so really, it is a simple addition, as simple modification
`adding a boost converter to the Chu references.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`Now, turning to the motivation to combine, the institution decision we
`say correctly found that the Petitioner had provided a sufficient articulated
`rationale for combining the references, and specifically called out the Chu
`and Choi combination. The evidentiary record that has been developed over
`the course of these proceedings supports that finding.
`Here, on slide 20, at the top we've quoted from Patent Owner's sur-
`reply, and really the Patent Owner's main argument appears to be that
`combining Chu and Choi would not have been obvious, there would have
`been no motivation to do so, because, supposedly, the benefits of one or the
`other would be destroyed, and respectfully, Patent Owner is mistaken about
`that.
`
`As an initial matter, Petitioner, we do not suggest proposing
`modifying Choi, we are not trying to modify Choi based on Chu's teaching,
`so none of the benefits of Choi would be at issue. Our argument is that you
`would modify Chu by adding Choi's boost converter, and there the
`suggestion that Chu's efficiency benefits would somehow be harmed is
`incorrect.
`And we have in the middle of slide 20 the testimony of Patent
`Owner's expert Dr. Kelley that really gets at this issue, and so the question
`is, were these things the benefits of efficiency that Chu talks about in part,
`the benefits of having a signal that does not degrade as the battery voltage
`declines that Choi talks about. Were these, somehow exclusive benefits the
`way Patent Owner is casting them now, or are these standard design
`tradeoffs in this field, something that any person of ordinary skill would
`have wrestled with?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`Dr. Kelley answers that question. He was asked, "So in designing a
`power management circuit you're balancing those competing concerns,
`providing enough power for the load, while at the same time being as
`efficient as you can be. Is that fair?" And his answer was: "I'm not sure I
`characterize them as being competing, there are certainly simultaneous
`concerns, you worry about both of those in terms of making your power
`supply work properly."
`So, Dr. Kelley's testimony was: The supposed idea of Chu and Choi
`being in competition with each other, they are not, they’re simultaneous
`concerns that any person of ordinary skill in the art would have taken into
`consideration in designing their circuit.
`And we can actually see that in Chu, and we can see it in Choi. In
`Chu, and this is Exhibit 1004 at pages 2809 to 2810, what Chu -- Patent
`Owner characterizes Chu as solely concerning efficiency, and with respect
`that's not correct.
`What Chu says is, in this paper a master slave linear and switch mode
`supply modulator, with fast dynamic transient response is presented, and
`here is the key. By using inaccurate current-sensing technique efficiency
`and linearity of the supply modulator is further optimized, so it's efficiency
`and linearity. And what linearity is referring to is, you have a linear
`response to the input envelope signal, the output of your supply responds in
`a linear fashion, so that as the envelope signal increases the output increases
`the output increases linearly.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Counsel, is that cited as the (crosstalk) --
`MR. DOWD: It is.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: -- for motivation to combine these references?
`MR. DOWD: It is. First, it is in the Patent Owner's reply at 46, he's
`quoting this sentence in our petition at page 45, we specifically call out how
`Choi promotes linearity. And so this consideration of linearity was
`definitely in the petition, and what it's saying is, we're not just concerned
`about efficiency of Chu, it's not just concerned about efficiency, but also
`concerned about what happens if the battery starts to fade, because you can't
`continue, you can't -- as the battery starts to fade, you degrade the signal
`quality, and that's the impact on linearity.
`So, in other words, you can no longer maintain a linear output from
`the supply, as the battery degrades. But Chu is definitely concerned about
`that. It's concerned about efficiency, and providing a linear power response
`to the load, which in this case is the supply amplifier.
`Choi does the same thing, and this is the bottom quote on slide 20,
`Choi talks about efficiency degradation by the addition of the boost is not
`serious. So, Choi is talking about, we are going to add a boost converter,
`and adding the boost converter helps to promote the linear output, and make
`sure that that output doesn’t degrade, the signal doesn’t degrade at the
`output, as the battery starts to roll off.
`And what Chu -- what Choi already says is, we can add boost
`converter to protect against that problem, to protect against the power loss
`and the signal degradation, while at the same time not having a very large
`impact on efficiency. So here is Choi actually balancing those same
`concerns as well, and what Choi says is, the efficiency degradation by the
`additional boost converter is not serious, and then Choi actually backs that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`up with data and says that the efficiency without the boost converter is 78
`percent, and the efficiency with the boost converter is 76.5 percent.
`So, you get a 2 percent loss of efficiency for this great gain in having
`a signal that maintains fidelity and doesn’t degrade. And that means that
`you can go deeper into the battery voltage as it's starting to fall, and still
`maintain an output that is acceptable, and that the chip is going to function
`with.
`
`That's what Choi describes, it's exactly the same issue, it's exactly
`what Kelley says he would address in one of the -- the two concerns he
`would address when you are designing a chip.
`Sorry. We're getting some feedback
`JUDGE FISHMAN: Mr. Dowd, can you hear me?
`MR. DOWD: Yes.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: I believe you were referring to petition page 45
`as explaining this motivation to combine.
`MR. DOWD: I was pointing to the petition at page 45 as Choi --
`describing the Choi and the linearity issue.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: (Crosstalk). Okay. I'm looking at page 45 and
`I'm trying to follow that. Do you have your petition handy?
`SPEAKER: 5 - 3?
`MR. DOWD: I'm turning to it now, Your Honor.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: Good. Okay. If you could go back to page 44,
`you're mapping the envelope amplifier element. If I don't see it expressing
`the motivation issue, it's simply point that the teachings in Chu, (crosstalk) --
`MR. DOWD: Your Honor, are you in the petition 1153?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`JUDGE FISHMAN: I'm in 1152.
`MR. DOWD: Sorry. I should have been more specific. In 1153,
`starting at page 44 under the heading Motivation to Combine Chu and Choi
`2010, there is discussion about how the advantages are specifically taught by
`Choi 2010, and would have motivated a person of ordinary skill to modify
`Chu accordingly, and when --
`JUDGE FISHMAN: Counsel, I've got it now. Thank you.
`MR. DOWD: Yeah. And then at the top of 45 we described how it
`has the output power and linearity in the power amplifier. So, that's my
`fault, I should have specified 1153.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you.
`MR. DOWD: Okay. So, if we turn then to the evidence that was
`developed over the course of the proceedings, here on slide 21, about the
`motivation to combine Chu and Choi, we have the declaration of Dr. Apsel,
`who is Petitioner's expert, and she clearly lays out that one of ordinary skill
`in the art would have been motivated to use a boost converter to prevent
`distortion as the battery becomes depleted. That's that same idea about
`maintaining the linearity of the output, and the reverse of saying that is, if
`you're not maintaining the linearity, you're seeing distortion because the
`output degrades as the battery drops.
`So, Dr. Apsel is saying, it would have been obvious, and you would
`have been motivated to make the combination to prevent that problem, and it
`would, as a result have -- Chu's linear amplifier being more robust, and that
`distortion would be prevented. Now, that's Petitioner's expert.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`Turning on slide 22 to Patent Owner's expert Dr. Kelley, he agreed.
`He was asked: Choi 2010 talks about battery degradation, right? Answer:
`Right. And Choi 2010 says you can use a boost converter to address battery
`degradation, right? The answer: Yes. Question: Choi 2010 boost converter
`prevents a linear amplifier output power from degrading when the battery
`depletes, right? Answer: That's true.
`So, in other words, Choi teaches that using a boost converter would
`make a linear amplifier like the one in Chu more robust, and prevent
`distortion as the battery becomes depleted, just like Dr. Apsel said.
`On slide 23, Dr. Apsel also points out, and we should have
`highlighted it, but it's in the third line, the Maehara reference, so this is
`another reference that demonstrates that this was a widely known solution in
`the art, using a boost converter to maintain the signal quality, in other words,
`avoid degradation, was widely known in the art.
`And she talks about the Maehara reference as disclosing a step up
`converter, which is another way of saying a boost converter, for always
`generating an increased voltage, or a second voltage. Maehara actually
`teaches switching between the two, that's in our petition, the 153 petition at
`46, and that as a result any distortion of the amplified signal can be
`prevented.
`So, consistent with KSR, Maehara is evidence that persons of ordinary
`skill in the art understood the benefits of adding a boost converter,
`understood that they would provide the benefits that Dr. Apsel has identified
`and would motivate a person to make that combination in the context of
`Chu.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`If we go to slide 24, Dr. Apsel continues that it was obvious to use a
`boost converter to boost a falling battery voltage and provide the boosted
`voltage to circuit components such as Chu's envelope amplifier to maintain
`operation and minimize distortion as the battery drop
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
