`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`Intel Corporation,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`Case IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 90.2(a), Patent Owner, Qualcomm, Inc.,
`
`Case IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`
`(“Qualcomm” or “Patent Owner”), hereby appeals to the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written
`
`Decision in IPR2018-01152, entered on January 15, 2020 (Paper No. 30) and from
`
`all underlying orders, decisions, rulings and opinions that are adverse to
`
`Qualcomm, including, without limitation, those within the Decision on Institution
`
`of Inter Partes Review, entered January 16, 2019 (Paper No. 9).
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R § 90.2(a)(3)(ii), Patent Owner further indicates
`
`that the issues on appeal include, but are not limited to, constitutionality of the
`
`appointment of the Administrative Patent Judges who presided over this inter
`
`partes review; determination of unpatentability of claims 1-9 and 13 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,698,558; any finding or determination supporting or related to those issues;
`
`as well as all other issues decided adversely to Patent Owner in any orders,
`
`decisions, rulings, and opinions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Simultaneous with this submission, a copy of this Notice of Appeal is being
`
`Case IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`
`filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office by way of hand delivery
`
`to the Office of General Counsel to:
`
`Office of the General Counsel
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Madison Building East, Room 10B20
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`In addition, this Notice of Appeal, along with a copy of the Final Written
`
`Decision, is being filed electronically with the United States Court of Appeals for
`
`the Federal Circuit along with the required docketing fees, and one paper copy of
`
`the Notice of Appeal is being provided to the Clerk’s Office:
`
`Clerk of Court
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`717 Madison Place, NW, Room 401
`Washington, DC 20439
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /
`
`
`
` Joshua R. Nightingale /
`Joshua R. Nightingale, Reg. No. 67,865
`JONES DAY
`500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 13, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on March 13,
`
`2020, a complete and entire copy of this PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF
`
`APPEAL has been served in its entirety by e-mail on the following counsel of record
`
`for petitioner:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh - david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Richard Goldenberg - richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`Nina Tallon - nina.tallon@wilmerhale.com
`Joseph Mueller - joseph.mueller@wilmerhale.com
`Todd Zubler - todd.zubler@wilmerhale.com
`Kathryn Zalewski - kathryn.zalewski@wilmerhale.com
`Theodoros Konstantakopoulos -
`theodoros.konstantakopoulos@wilmerhale.com
`James M. Dowd – james.dowd@wilmerhale.com
`Louis Tompros – louis.tompros@wilmerhale.com
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Fax: (617) 526-5000
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 13, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /
`
`
`
` Joshua R. Nightingale /
`Joshua R. Nightingale, Reg. No. 67,865
`JONES DAY
`500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 30
`Date: January 15, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERON, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`In the inter partes reviews in IPR2018-01152 and IPR2018-01153,
`Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) challenges claims 1–9 and 12–14 of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,698,558 B2 (IPR2018-00152, Ex. 1001; IPR2018-01153, Ex.
`1101; “the ’558 patent”), which is assigned to Qualcomm Incorporated
`(“Patent Owner”).
`As explained in detail below, the references applied against the
`challenged claims are identical in each of the cases. A joint hearing was
`held for these cases. The parties rely on the same declarants submitting
`substantially similar declarations in each case for testimonial evidence.
`Under these circumstances, we determine that a combined Final Decision
`will promote a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of these proceedings.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), addresses issues and
`arguments raised during the trial in these inter partes reviews. For the
`reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 12–14 of the ’558 patent are
`unpatentable in IPR2018-01152 and claims 1–9 of the ’558 patent are
`unpatentable in IPR2018-01153. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`A. Procedural History
`In IPR2018-01152, Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 2, “1152 Pet.”)
`challenging claims 12–14 of the ’558 patent. Patent Owner filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 8).1 We instituted trial on all grounds of
`
`
`1 Similar papers and exhibits were filed in each case with related numbering.
`References to papers and exhibits in this Final Written Decision refer to
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`unpatentability. Paper 9 (“1152 Dec. on Inst.”), 22–23. During trial, Patent
`Owner filed a Response (Paper 16, “1152 PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a
`Reply (Paper 20, “1152 Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply
`(Paper 23, “1152 PO Sur-reply”).
`In IPR2018-01153, Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 3, “1153 Pet.”)
`challenging claims 1–9 of the ’558 patent. Patent Owner filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 8). We instituted trial on all grounds of unpatentability.
`Paper 9 (“1153 Dec. on Inst.”), 22–23. During the trial, Patent Owner filed a
`Response (Paper 16, “1153 PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 19,
`“1153 Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 22, “1153 PO
`Sur-reply”).
`A combined oral hearing for these inter partes reviews was held on
`October 28, 2019, a transcript of which appears in the record in each case.
`Paper 29 (“Tr.”) (IPR2018-01152); Paper 27 (IPR2018-01153).
`B. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1. IPR2018-01152 Grounds
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 12–14 of the ’558 patent in
`IPR2018-01152 on the following grounds:
`
`
`filings in IPR2018-01152 unless otherwise specified by “1152” or “1153”
`preceding the citation.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`12, 14
`14
`13
`13
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`102(b)2
`103(a)
`103(a)
`103(a)
`
`References
`
`Chu3
`Chu, Blanken4
`Chu, Choi 20105
`Chu, Choi 2010,
`Myers6
`
`1152 Dec. on Inst. 22–23; 1152 Pet. 39–40, 72.
`In support of these grounds, Petitioner relies on the Declaration of
`Dr. Alyssa Apsel (Ex. 1003), the Reply Declaration of Dr. Alyssa B. Apsel
`(Ex. 1027), and the Deposition of Dr. Arthur Kelley (Ex. 1028) in support
`the Petition. Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Arthur Kelley
`(Ex. 2005) and Depositions of Dr. Alyssa Apsel (Ex. 2006; Ex. 2008).
`2. IPR2018-01153 Grounds
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 1–9 of the ’558 patent in
`IPR2018-01153 on the following grounds.
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35
`U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the
`’558 patent issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we
`apply the pre-AIA versions of the statutory bases for unpatentability.
`3 Wing-Yee Chu, et al., A 10 MHz Bandwidth, 2 mV Ripple PA Regulator for
`CDMA Transmitters, IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS 2809–2819
`(2008) (Ex. 1004, “Chu”).
`4 P.G. Blanken, et al., A 50MHz Bandwidth Multi-Mode PA Supply
`Modulator for GSM, EDGE and UMTS Application, 2008 RADIO
`FREQUENCY INTEGRATED CIRCUITS SYMPOSIUM (IEEE) 401–404 (2008)
`(Ex. 1010, “Blanken”).
`5 Jinsung Choi, et al., Envelope Tracking Power Amplifier Robust to Battery
`Depletion,” Microwave Symposium Digest (MTT), 2010 IEEE MTT-S
`INTERNATIONAL 1074–1077 (2010) (Ex. 1007, “Choi 2010”).
`6 Myers, et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,929,702 (Ex. 1012, “Myers”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`6, 8
`1–9
`
`
`1153 Dec. on Inst. 24–25; 1153 Pet. 39–40.
`Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Alyssa Apsel (1153
`Ex. 1103), the Reply Declaration of Dr. Alyssa B. Apsel (1153 Ex. 1127),
`and the Deposition of Dr. Arthur Kelley (1153 Ex. 1128) in support of the
`1153 Petition. Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Arthur Kelley
`(Ex. 2005) and Depositions of Dr. Alyssa Apsel (Ex. 2006, Ex. 2008).
`C. Related Proceedings
`Apple Inc. is identified as an additional real party-in-interest. 1152
`Pet. 2. The parties inform us that the ’558 patent was asserted against
`Petitioner in the litigation Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-
`01375-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal.) and against Apple in a proceeding before the
`International Trade Commission (“ITC”) captioned In the Matter of Certain
`Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing
`Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1065. 1152 Pet. 2; 1152 Paper 6, 2.
`D. The ’558 Patent and Illustrative Claims
`The ’558 patent is titled “Low-Voltage Power-Efficient Envelope
`Tracker” and discloses “[t]echniques for efficiently generating a power
`supply for a power amplifier” used in communication system transmitters.
`Ex. 1001, 1:30–31, code (54). The ’558 patent discloses that a
`transmitter typically includes a power amplifier (PA) to provide
`high transmit power for the output RF signal. The power
`amplifier should be able to provide high output power and have
`high power-added efficiency (PAE). Furthermore, the power
`amplifier may be required to have good performance and high
`PAE even with a low battery voltage.
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103(a)
`103(a)
`
`References
`Chu, Choi 2010
`Chu, Choi 2010, Myers
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`Id. at 1:21–26. The ’558 patent also discloses that the power amplifier
`apparatus may include: (1) in one embodiment, an envelope amplifier and a
`boost converter; (2) in a second embodiment a switcher, an envelope
`amplifier, and a power amplifier; or (3) in a third embodiment, a switcher
`that may sense an input current and generate a switching signal to charge
`and discharge an inductor providing a supply current. Id. at 1:31–34, 1:51–
`52, 1:66–2:2.
`Figure 3, below, shows an exemplary switcher and envelope
`amplifier. Ex. 1001, 4:39–42.
`
`Figure 3 shows switcher 160a and envelope amplifier 170a, which, in turn,
`includes operational amplifier (op-amp) 310 that receives the envelope
`signal. Id. at 4:41–63. Driver 312 has output (R1) coupled to the gate of P-
`channel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS) transistor 314 and a second
`output (R2) coupled N-channel MOS (NMOS) transistor 316. Id. PMOS
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`transistor 318 in envelope amplifier 170a is connected to receive C1 control
`signal via Vboost voltage from Boost Converter 180. Id. PMOS transistor
`320 in envelope amplifier 170 receives a C2 control signal and Vbat voltage.
`Id.
`
`Within switcher 160a, current sense amplifier 330 has its input
`coupled to current sensor 164 and its output coupled to an input of switcher
`driver 332. Ex. 1001, 4:64–66. Vbat voltage of switcher 160a provides
`current to power amplifier 130 via inductor 162 when the switcher is ON,
`and inductor 120 provides stored energy to power amplifier 130 during the
`OFF state of the switcher circuit. Id. at 5:14–30. In the ON state, the
`switcher is joined with the current from the envelope amplifier 170a (Ienv)
`to provide a combined current (Ipa) to PA 130. See id. at 3:21–27.
`The ’558 patent also discloses another embodiment for the switcher
`circuit of Figure 3—specifically a switcher that uses offset current to lower
`the Isen current from the current sensor, keeping the switcher in the ON state
`for a longer time and producing a larger Iind current provided to power
`amplifier 130. Id. at 1:5–48, Fig. 5.
`Claims 1, 6, 8, and 12 are independent. Claims 6, 7, 12, and 13 are
`illustrative and reproduced below (Ex. 1001, 11:42–11:67, 12:51–13:14).
`6. An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
`a power amplifier operative to receive and amplify an
`input radio frequency (RF) signal and provide an output RF
`signal; and
`a supply generator operative to receive an envelope signal
`and a first supply voltage, to generate a boosted supply voltage
`having a higher voltage than the first supply voltage, and to
`generate a second supply voltage for the power amplifier based
`on the envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage, wherein
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`the supply generator incorporates an operational amplifier (op-
`amp) operative to receive the envelope signal and provide an
`amplified signal, a driver operative to receive the amplified
`signal and provide a first control signal and a second control
`signal, a P-channel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS)
`transistor having a gate receiving a first control signal, a source
`receiving the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage,
`and a drain providing the second supply voltage, and an N-
`channel metal oxide semiconductor (NMOS) transistor having a
`gate receiving the second control signal, a drain providing the
`second supply voltage, and a source coupled to circuit ground.
`7.
`The apparatus of claim 6, wherein 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.
`12. An apparatus comprising:
`a switcher operative to receive a first supply voltage and
`provide a first supply current;
`an envelope amplifier operative to receive an envelope
`signal and provide a second supply current based on the envelope
`signal; and
`a power amplifier operative to receive an envelope signal
`and provide a second supply current based on the envelope
`signal; and
`a power amplifier operative to receive a total supply
`current comprising the first supply current and the second supply
`current, wherein the switcher comprises
`a current sense amplifier operative to sense the first supply
`current, or the second supply current, or the total supply current
`and provide a sensed signal,
`a driver operative to receive the sensed signal and provide
`a first control signal and a second control signal,
`a P-channel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS) transistor
`having a gate receiving the first control signal, a source receiving
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`the first supply voltage, and a drain providing a switching signal
`for an inductor providing the first supply current, and
`an N-channel metal oxide semiconductor (NMOS)
`transistor having a gate receiving the second control signal, a
`drain providing the switching signal, and a source coupled to
`circuit ground.
`13. The apparatus of claim 12, further comprising:
`a boost converter operative to receive the first supply
`voltage and provide a boosted supply voltage having a higher
`voltage than the first supply voltage, wherein the envelope
`amplifier operates based on the first supply voltage or the
`boosted supply voltage.
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The parties do not materially dispute the level of ordinary skill in the
`art. See 1152 PO Resp. 9–10; 1152 Pet. 38–39. Petitioner argues a person
`of ordinary skill in the art related to the ’558 patent at the time of filing
`would have a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`engineering, or computer science and would also have at least two years of
`relevant experience or a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields and four
`years of relevant experience, where relevant experience “refers to experience
`with mobile device architecture as well as transmission and power circuitry
`for radio frequency devices.” 1152 Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1001, code (57),
`1:7–9, 1:30–31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–85).
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary
`skill in the art and we find the work experience is commensurate with the
`level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected in the prior art. See In re GPAC
`Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, as Petitioner has asserted,
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`we discern the prior art, as well as the ’558 patent, requires a degree of
`knowledge that is specific to mobile device architecture as well as
`transmission and power circuitry for radio frequency devices. See 1152 Pet.
`38–39; Ex. 1001, code (57), 1:7–9, 1:30–31.
`B. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review for a petition filed before November 13,
`2018, a claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017); see Changes to the Claim Construction
`Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); effective November 13, 2018). The Petition was
`accorded a filing date of June 28, 2018, and therefore, the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard for claim interpretation applies. See
`Paper 5 (Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition).
`In applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms generally
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In
`re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This
`presumption may be rebutted when a patentee, acting as a lexicographer, sets
`forth an alternate definition of a term in the specification with reasonable
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, only terms that are in controversy need to be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013,
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`1. “current sense amplifier” (claim 12)
`Petitioner offers a claim construction for “current sense amplifier”
`(claim 12) to mean an “amplifier that produces a voltage from a current,”
`which is based on the ALJ’s construction in the parallel ITC proceeding.
`1152 Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1023, 11–12). Petitioner argues that the ITC
`construction is consistent with the ’558 patent specification and the
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. 1152 Pet. 37–38. Patent
`Owner argues that this term does not require construction, but does not
`contest Petitioner’s contention or our adoption of this construction in the
`Institution Decision. 1152 PO Resp. 9.
`Based on the full record and for the reasons given by the ALJ in the
`ITC proceeding (Ex. 1023, 11–12), we adopt the construction of “current
`sense amplifier” to mean an “amplifier that produces a voltage from a
`current.”
`
`2. “envelope signal” (claims 1, 6–8, and 12)
`Petitioner offers a claim construction for “envelope signal” (claim 12)
`to mean a “signal indicative of the upper bound of the output RF signal,”
`which is the ALJ’s construction in the ITC proceeding. 1152 Pet. 38; Ex.
`1023, 13–14. Patent Owner argues that this term does not require
`construction, but does not contest Petitioner’s contention or our adoption of
`this construction in the Institution Decision. 1152 PO Resp. 9.
`Based on the full record and for the reasons given by the ALJ (Ex.
`1023, 13–14), we adopt the ITC construction for “envelope signal” to mean
`a “signal indicative of the upper bound of the output RF signal.”
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`3. “a P-channel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS) transistor [having]
`. . . a source [receiving/that receives] the boosted supply voltage or the
`first supply voltage” (claims 6 and 8) and
`“wherein the envelope amplifier operates based on the first supply
`voltage or the boosted supply voltage” (claim 13)
`Claims 6 and 8 recite in pertinent part “a P-channel metal oxide
`semiconductor (PMOS) transistor [having] . . . a source [receiving/that
`receives] the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage.” Claim 13
`recites a similar limitation. At issue for claims 6, 8, and 13 is the
`interpretation of whether the PMOS transistor source or the envelope
`amplifier is required to receive (operate) on both the first supply voltage and
`the boosted supply voltage or whether one of these voltages would suffice to
`satisfy the limitation of claims 6, 8, and 13.
`Patent Owner argues that “[t]he only reasonable interpretation of this
`claim element, properly read within the context of the claim as a whole, is
`that the source of the PMOS transistor must be able to receive, selectively,
`either the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage (referred to
`herein as a ‘selective boost’).” 1153 PO Resp. 19 (emphasis added) (citing
`1153 Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 47–61); see 1152 PO Resp. 9 (stating same selective boost
`required for claim 13 between the first supply voltage and the boosted
`supply voltage) (citing 1152 Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 48–56).
`With respect to claim 6 in IPR2018-001153, Patent Owner argues that
`the text of claim 6 requires a supply generator that generates two supply
`voltages. 1153 PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:42–63). Thus, the
`claim 6 limitations directed to the transistor source receiving said supply
`voltages from the generator refers to selectively receiving the first supply
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`voltage or boosted supply voltage. Id. Thus, this selective boost is required
`for claim 6 and the related limitation in claim 8.
`Patent Owner asserts that to interpret it otherwise would render
`portions of the claims meaningless or superfluous and cannot be correct.
`1153 PO Resp. 20–21 (citing Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of
`Phoenix, Inc., 672 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Wasica Fin. GmbH v.
`Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1288 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Patent
`Owner argues that to adopt Petitioner’s construction and allow the transistor
`to receive either one of the voltages alone would render the other supply
`voltage an optional signal that need not be present throughout the claim.
`1153 PO Resp. 22.
`Claim 7, which depends from independent claim 6, recites “wherein
`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” (emphasis added). Relying on Petitioner’s concession that
`claim 7 requires a selective boost (see e.g., 1153 Pet. 80–81), Patent Owner
`argues that claim 6, which generates two voltages applied to the PMOS
`transistor source, indicates that the transistor source must be capable of
`receiving either one of two boosted voltages (selectively) as recited in claim
`7. 1153 PO Resp. 23. Thus, “despite [claim 6’s] inclusion of the
`conjunction ‘or,’ the ‘boosted supply voltage’ and the ‘first supply voltage’
`[of claim 6] are not alternative options—the claimed PMOS source must be
`capable of receiving both. No other interpretation makes sense in the
`context of [claims 6 and 8].” 1153 PO Resp. 24.
`
`Claim 13, which depends from claim 12, also requires the “selective
`boost” discussed above for claims 6 and 7, as it recites “wherein the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`envelope amplifier operates based on the first supply voltage or the boosted
`supply voltage.” (Ex. 1001, 1:42–50, 8:55–62). The limitation in claim 13
`mirrors the limitation in claim 6 and requires the amplifier (recited as a
`transistor in claim 6) to receive or operate on a first voltage or a boosted
`voltage. Patent Owner contends that read in context of the claims:
`The claim 13 limitation “a boost converter operative to receive
`the first supply voltage and provide a boosted supply voltage
`having a higher voltage than the first supply voltage” serves no
`purpose whatsoever [under Petitioner’s construction]. The only
`reasonable interpretation is that the envelope amplifier must be
`able to receive both voltage inputs, and selectively choose which
`one to use. That is, the envelope amplifier operates based on one
`or the other supply voltage, but it must receive both and
`selectively choose which one to use.
`1152 PO Resp. 24 (emphasis added).
`Patent Owner argues that the ’558 patent specification also supports
`this conclusion as it refers to an amplifier receiving “the boosted supply
`voltage or the first supply voltage” and “the first supply voltage or the
`boosted supply voltage,” but always does so in the context of an example
`employing a selective boost. Ex. 1001, 1:42–50, 8:55–62; see 1152 PO
`Resp. 20; 1153 PO Resp. 24–25. In the remaining instances where the first
`supply voltage or boosted supply voltages are referenced without an
`example of a selective boost (Ex. 1001, 8:62–9:17; 9:21–36; 10:19–29), the
`passages refer to Figures 3 or 5 of the ’558 patent, and both figures show an
`amplifier operating on either a first supply voltage or a boosted supply
`voltage. 1152 PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Figures 3 and 5); see 1153 PO Resp.
`26–27 (discussing same). Patent Owner’s annotated Figures 3 and 5 from
`the ’558 patent are provided below.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`1152 PO Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner’s annotated Figures 3 and 5 from the
`’558 patent both show Vbat (first supply voltage) and Vboost (boosted
`supply voltage) connected as inputs into the source of PMOS transistor 314.
`Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:31–49). Patent Owner avers that under
`Petitioner’s proposed construction, a system that was capable of receiving
`only Vbat would render the features and limitations directed to a boosted
`voltage meaningless. 1152 PO Resp. 27–28
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s reliance on the text of the claim
`recitation of “or” in claims 6, 8, and 13 as merely providing alternatives that
`would operate on only one voltage is mistaken because it is inconsistent with
`the language of the specification and would render aspects of claims 6, 8,
`and 13 meaningless. See 1152 PO Resp. 23–24 (citing Wasica Fin., 853
`F.3d at 1288 n.10; In re Gaubert, 524 F.2d 1222 (CCPA 1975)); 1153 PO
`Resp. 20, 29 (noting same). Patent Owner also contends that textual reading
`of the claim limitations for claims 6, 8, and 13 in a conjunctive manner that
`allows only one supply voltage to be present would be contrary to the
`disclosed embodiments and inconsistent with the claim language as a whole.
`1152 PO Resp. 25; 1153 PO Resp. 29.
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Apsel, Petitioner’s declarant,
`admitted that “based on” as recited in claim 6 requires that both of the
`claimed voltages must be available. 1152 PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2004,
`42:19–43:9); see 1153 PO Resp. 24 (citing same).
`
`Petitioner responds that the plain language of claims 6 and 13 recites
`an “envelope amplifier” that “operates based on the first supply voltage or
`the boosted supply voltage.” 1152 Pet. Reply 3 (emphasis added); Ex. 1001,
`13:13–15; 1153 Pet. Reply 3. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s declarant agrees
`that the conjunctive use of “or” identifies, in plain English, the recitation of
`two alternatives. 1152 Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1028, 130:10–18, 130:19–
`131:2); 1153 Pet. Reply 3–4. Petitioner relies heavily on the plain meaning
`of the claims, which recite the conjunctive “or” in reference to the source
`receiving the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage.
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence and argument. First,
`Petitioner’s reliance on the text of the claims fails to construe the claims in
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`light of the intrinsic record. See In re Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257.
`Petitioner does not address the ’558 patent specification and the repeated
`references in context that inform the dual supply voltages and their operation
`at the source of the amplifier. See Ex. 1001, 1:42–50, 8:55–62, 8:62–9:17,
`9:21–36, 10:19–29, Figs. 3 and 5; see 1152 PO Resp. 20; 1153 PO Resp.
`24–25. Although we agree that use of the conjunctive “or” in claims 6, 8,
`and 13 is an acceptable mechanism for claiming alternatives such that only
`one of the limitations need be found in the prior art (see In re Gaubert, 524
`F.2d 1222 (CCPA 1975)), claim limitations under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation must also be interpreted in light of the intrinsic record (see In
`re Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257). In the present case, the context of
`the claim limitations and ’558 patent specification inform the scope of the
`claims.
`Petitioner’s arguments assert both that Patent Owner improperly limits
`the construction to one disclosed embodiment (1152 Pet. Reply 7; 1153 Pet.
`Reply 7) and that the Patent Owner’s construction improperly excludes a
`disclosed embodiment (1153 Pet Reply 6–7; Ex. 1001, 8:24–26). We are not
`persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s construction should
`be rejected because it excludes an embodiment. 1152 Pet. Reply 7 (citing
`EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`2014); Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d
`1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., 257
`F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The cases Petitioner cites refer to
`constructions that read out preferred embodiments. See EPOS Techs., 766
`F.3d at 1347; Dow Chem. Co., 257 F.3d, at 1378; Anchor Wall Sys., 340
`F.3d at 1308. Petitioner provides no persuasive evidence that the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`embodiment they identify as being excluded is the preferred embodiment of
`the ’558 patent. Further, Petitioner cites no support that claims 6, 8 and 13
`must be construed to cover all embodiments. See Baran v. Med. Device
`Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 1152 PO Sur-reply 6.
`The Federal Circuit has stated that the broadest reasonable
`construction is not required to cover the most embodiments in a patent
`specification, but “must be reasonable in light of the claims and
`specification. The fact that one construction may cover more embodiments
`than another does not categorically render that construction reasonable.”
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747,
`755 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see 1152 PO Sur-reply 6 (citing same). We are not
`persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that exclusion of a single embodiment
`renders Patent Owner’s claim construction improper.
`We are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that in related
`proceedings before the United States District Court for the Southern District
`of California, the court issued a claim construction for a related term in
`claim 7 of the ’558 patent that construed “or” in similar manner as Petitioner
`proposes here. 1153 Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1026, 5–6); 1152 Pet. Reply
`4–6 (citing same). The district court was faced with assessing whether
`“based on” in claim 7 of the ’558 patent was indefi