UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2018-0l 152
`Patent 8,698,558
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ARTHUR W. KELLEY
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`By:
`
`~c-y,/ ~ 'f{ts-j:M9
`
`Arthur W. Kelley, Ph.D.
`
`Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated
`IPR2018-01152
`Exhibit 2005
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ............................................................... 3 
`I. 
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................. 5 
`II. 
`III.  THE ’558 PATENT ......................................................................................... 9 
`A.  Overview of the ’558 Patent .................................................................. 9 
`B. 
`Prosecution History of the ’558 Patent ............................................... 15 
`C. 
`Level of Skill in the Art ....................................................................... 19 
`D. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 19 
`1. 
`“Current Sense Amplifier (Claim 12) ....................................... 19 
`2. 
`“Envelope Signal” (Claim 12) .................................................. 20 
`3. 
`Selective Boost Limitations (Claim 13) .................................... 20 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF THE CITED REFERENCES ............................................ 26 
`A.  Overview of Chu ................................................................................. 26 
`B.  Overview of Choi 2010 ....................................................................... 30 
`C.  Overview of Blanken .......................................................................... 32 
`D.  Overview of Myers .............................................................................. 33 
`V.  GROUND III OF THE PETITION IS BASED ON AN
`UNSUPPORTABLE CLAIM INTERPRETATION .................................... 37 
`VI.  THE POSA WOULD NOT HAVE COMBINED CHU AND CHOI 2010 . 38 
`VII.  THE POSA WOULD NOT HAVE COMBINED MYERS WITH CHU
`AND CHOI 2010 ........................................................................................... 45 
`A.  A POSA Would Understand That Choi 2010 Teaches Away From
`“Selective Boost” ................................................................................ 45 
`B.  A POSA Would Not Have Combined Myers With Chu And
`Choi 2010 ............................................................................................ 48 
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Qualcomm Incorporated
`
`(“Qualcomm” or “Patent Owner”) in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,698,558 (“the ’558 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate of $450 for consulting services. My compensation in no way depends
`
`on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`a.
`b.
`
`c.
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I considered the following materials:
`
`The ’558 Patent (Ex. 1001) and its file history (Ex. 1002);
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558,
`IPR2018-01152 (Paper 2) (“Petition” or “Paper 2”);
`The Declaration of Dr. Alyssa B. Apsel (Ex. 1003);
`Chu, W.Y., et al., “A 10 MHz Bandwidth, 2 mV Ripple PA Regulator
`for CDMA Transmitters,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits: 2809-
`2819 (2008) (“Chu”) (Ex. 1004);
`Choi, J., et al., “Envelope tracking power amplifier robust to battery
`depletion,” Microwave Symposium Digest (MTT), 2010 IEEE MTT-
`S International: 1332-36 (2010) (“Choi 2010”) (Ex. 1006);
`Blanken, P.G. et al., “A 50MHz Bandwidth Multi-Mode PA Supply
`Modulator for GSM, EDGE and UMTS Application,” 2008 Radio
`Frequency Integrated Circuits Symposium (IEEE) 401-04 (2008)
`(“Blanken”) (Ex. 1010);
`Kwak, T.W., et al., “A 2 W CMOS hybrid switching amplitude
`modulator for EDGE polar transmitters,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State
`Circuits 2666-76 (2007) (“Kwak”) (Ex. 1011);
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`l.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,929,702, “Method and Apparatus for High
`Efficiency High Dynamic Range Power Amplification,” to Myers, et
`al. (“Myers”) (Ex. 1012);
`Kim, D. et al., “High Efficiency and Wideband Envelope Tracking
`Power Amplifier with Sweet Spot Tracking,” Radio Frequency
`Integrated Circuits Symposium (RFIC): 255-258 (2010) (“Kim”) (Ex.
`1013);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,300,826, “Apparatus and Method for Efficiently
`Amplifying Wideband Envelope Signals,” to Mathe, et al. (“Mathe”)
`(Ex. 1014);
`k. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., MAX9738 – 16VP-P Class G
`Amplifier with Inverting Boost Converter, Datasheet 19-3700, Rev. 0
`(March 2008) (“Maxim”) (Ex. 1015);
`Ertl et al., “Basic considerations and topologies of switched-mode
`assisted linear power amplifiers,” IEEE Transactions On Industrial
`Electronics, Vol. 44, No. 1 at 116-123 (1997) (“Ertl”) (Ex. 1016);
`m. Kang, D. et al., “A Multimode/Multiband Power Amplifier With a
`Boosted Supply Modulator,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave
`Theory and Techniques 58.10 (2010): 2598-2608 (“Kang”) (Ex. 1017);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,834,977, “Amplifying Circuit with Power Supply
`Switching Circuit,” to Maehara, et al. (“Maehara”) (Ex. 1018);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,340, “Multiplexer,” to Ohsawa (“Ohsawa”) (Ex.
`1019);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,566,935, “Power Supply Circuit With a Voltage,” to
`Renous (“Renous”) (Ex. 1020);
`Certificate of Correction for the ’558 Patent (Ex. 1021);
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`p.
`
`q.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`r.
`
`s.
`
`Initial Claim Construction Brief, Certain Mobile
`Qualcomm
`Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing Components
`Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-1065 (“Qualcomm Brief”) (Ex.
`1022);
`Order No. 28: Construing Terms of the Asserted Patents, Certain
`Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing
`Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-1065 (“Markman
`Order”) (Ex. 1023);
`Initial Determination and Recommended Determination, Certain
`Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing
`Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-1065 (“Initial
`Determination”) (Ex. 2007).
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`4.
`I am an electrical and computer engineering consultant with over 35
`
`t.
`
`I.
`
`years of expertise and experience consulting on semiconductor technologies,
`
`including power management integrated circuits. I have provided my opinions
`
`and/or testimony as an expert witness in topics relating to power electronics in
`
`matters before the International Trade Commission, U.S. district courts, and the
`
`U.S. Patent Trial and Appeals Board.
`
`5.
`
`I earned bachelor’s (summa cum laude), master’s, and Ph.D. degrees
`
`in Electrical Engineering from Duke University. I received my Ph.D. degree in
`
`1984.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`6.
`
`From 1985 to 1987, I worked as a senior engineer at Sundstrand
`
`Corporation, where I worked on power electronics in the aerospace applications
`
`field, including commercial aircraft, military aircraft, and spacecraft.
`
`7.
`
`From 1987 to 2001, I was a professor with the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at North Carolina State University, where I
`
`was tenured and became Associate Professor in 1993. During this time, I
`
`developed and taught undergraduate and graduate course curricula in power
`
`electronics. I also developed funded research programs in areas including power
`
`electronics, semiconductor devices, and power systems.
`
`8.
`
`From 2000 to 2007, I worked as a senior design engineer at Linear
`
`Technology Corporation, which designs, manufactures, and markets a broad line of
`
`high-performance
`
`integrated circuits for sale worldwide.
`
` My principal
`
`responsibilities in this role involved the design of high-performance analog
`
`integrated circuits for power management. Additionally, I was also responsible for
`
`other aspects of product and technology development, including product definition,
`
`layout, manufacture, debug, ESD, functional test, life test, characterization,
`
`correlation, and applications.
`
`9.
`
`Since September 2007, I have worked as an independent consultant
`
`advising clients in matters related to power electronics, semiconductor designs,
`
`switching regulators, and others.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`10.
`
`I have authored more than 30 publications on power electronics topics.
`
`I am also an inventor on 9 U.S. patents, all of which relate to power electronics.
`
`11.
`
`I served as the Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Power Electronics
`
`Society’s newsletter from 2009 to 2012. From 2000 to 2002, I was the Editor-in-
`
`Chief of IEEE Transactions On Power Electronics, the premier journal in my field.
`
`In 2003, I received the IEEE Power Electronics Society Service Award. And in
`
`1997, I was the program chair for the IEEE Power Electronics Specialists
`
`Conference.
`
`12. These and other qualifications and experiences are described in my
`
`curriculum vitae, which is attached at Appendix A.
`
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`13.
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether claims 12-14
`
`of the ’558 Patent are anticipated by the alleged prior art or would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, in view of the alleged prior art.
`
`14.
`
`I am an engineer by training and profession. The opinions I am
`
`expressing in this Declaration involve the application of my engineering
`
`knowledge and experience to the evaluation of certain alleged prior art with respect
`
`to the ’558 Patent. Aside from my experience in litigation support, my knowledge
`
`of patent law is no different than that of any lay person. Therefore, I have
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`requested the attorneys from Jones Day, who represent Qualcomm, to provide me
`
`with guidance as to the applicable patent law in this matter. The paragraphs below
`
`express my understanding of how I must apply current principles related to
`
`patentability.
`
`15.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`anticipated or obvious in view of the alleged prior art, the Patent Office must
`
`construe the claim by giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification as it would have been understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. For the purposes of this review, I have construed each
`
`claim term in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the required
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`16.
`
`It
`
`is my understanding
`
`that a claim
`
`is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element and limitation of the claim is found
`
`either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.
`
`17.
`
`It
`
`is my understanding
`
`that a claim
`
`is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`
`to a POSA at the time of the alleged invention. I also understand that an
`
`obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and content of the prior art, the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`18.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered appropriate prior art if it falls within
`
`the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is prior art if it is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
`
`involved. A reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have
`
`commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a
`
`reference relates to the same problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of
`
`the reference as prior art in an obviousness analysis.
`
`19. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires the claimed invention
`
`be considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment requires showing that one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same
`
`problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would
`
`have selected the elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include: combining prior art
`
`elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; a
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions;
`
`applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and
`
`some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`21.
`
`It is my further understanding that there are certain limits on
`
`combining references in an obviousness determination. One limit is that the
`
`combination of references cannot be based on impermissible hindsight. I
`
`understand that impermissible hindsight may occur if, for example, different
`
`components are selectively culled from the prior art to fit the parameters of the
`
`invention, without a teaching or suggestion within the prior art, or within the
`
`general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention, to
`
`look to particular sources of information, to select particular elements, and to
`
`combine them in the way they were combined by the inventor. Another limit on
`
`combining references is when a reference teaches away from a specific
`
`combination. I understand that a first prior art reference may teach away from a
`
`second reference if the first reference discourages a POSA from following the path
`
`set out in the second reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`path taken by the applicant. Additionally, I understand that even if a reference is
`
`not found to teach away, its statements regarding preferences are still relevant to a
`
`finding regarding whether a POSA would be motivated to combine that reference
`
`with another reference.
`
`III. THE ’558 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’558 Patent
`22. U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558 (the “’558 Patent”) is titled “Low-Voltage
`
`Power-Efficient Envelope Tracker.” The ’558 Patent was filed on June 23, 2011.
`
`The ’558 Patent relates to an envelope tracking technique used to manage power in
`
`radio frequency (RF) transmission of a mobile device. Specifically, the ’558
`
`Patent discloses employing two different power sources, namely an envelope
`
`amplifier and a switcher, to supply time-varying supply voltage to an RF power
`
`amplifier (“PA”). The RF PA is responsible for amplifying a low-power RF signal
`
`into a higher power signal for external transmission via an antenna. As the PA is
`
`one of the most power-consuming components in RF circuitries, the performance
`
`and efficiency of a PA is critical for the overall power performance of a mobile
`
`device.
`
`23.
`
`In the prior art, a PA in RF transmission typically used a constant
`
`power supply voltage, as shown in Figure 2A of the ’558 Patent below:
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`
`24. Because the power required by the PA varies depending on the
`
`envelope of the RF signal, using a constant power supply voltage led to
`
`unnecessary dissipation of power. In mobile devices, such constant power
`
`provision undesirably and prematurely uses the battery. Furthermore, the unused
`
`power is dissipated as residual heat within an electronic device, and overexposure
`
`of integrated circuits and other electrical components to heat may degrade the
`
`reliability of the device. As a result, the useful lifetime of the device can be
`
`considerably shortened.
`
`25. The ’558 Patent employs a technique called “envelope tracking” to
`
`better tailor power consumption to needed power usage. Envelope tracking works
`
`by adaptively increasing or decreasing the power supply voltage of the PA to more
`
`closely match the amplitude of the output RF signal. As a result, wasted power
`
`and unnecessary heat is minimized. See Ex. 1001 at 4:26-30. This is shown in
`
`Figure 2C of the ’558 Patent:
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`
`
`With this configuration, “the difference between the PA supply voltage and
`
`the envelope of the RFout signal is small, which results in less wasted power.” Id.
`
`26. Although envelope tracking is a helpful technique, there are
`
`challenges to implementing it in a mobile device. Unlike base stations that receive
`
`a constant supply of power, a mobile device relies on a battery for its operations,
`
`including powering an RF PA for data transmissions. The battery voltage,
`
`however, decreases as the battery is discharged, and is not always sufficiently high
`
`for the PA to amplify an input RF signal to a desired output power level. See id. at
`
`3:46-56.
`
`27. This is particularly problematic for user experience because, whether
`
`a smartphone is fully charged or at a 10% battery level, a user should be able to
`
`perform all normal operations of the device, including web browsing and video
`
`chatting, until the battery dies. But if the PA does not transmit signals accurately
`
`at low battery, then low battery would effectively handicap the operations of a
`
`smartphone and prevent the user from squeezing the remaining power out of the
`
`battery.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`28. To address this issue, the ’558 Patent discloses an extremely efficient
`
`design for an envelope tracker that utilizes different power sources: a switcher and
`
`a linear envelope amplifier. These two power sources work together to efficiently
`
`generate the PA supply voltage.
`
`29. A switcher—also known as a “switching regulator”—is highly
`
`efficient because it relies on an energy storage element such as an inductor that can
`
`store energy and release it at a desired voltage level, thus dissipating minimal heat.
`
`Because an inductor is charged only when the switcher is “on,” the system can
`
`regulate the output voltage level by controlling the duration of the time the
`
`switcher is “on.”
`
`30.
`
`In contrast, a linear envelope amplifier (or simply an “envelope
`
`amplifier”) is less efficient because it uses a linear topology, meaning it
`
`continuously receives input power and dissipates unused power as heat in order to
`
`set the voltage output at the desired level. An envelope amplifier is easier to
`
`implement than a switcher, however, because there is no need for a switching
`
`mechanism such as charging and discharging of an inductor. The envelope
`
`amplifier is thus better suited than the switcher for supplying rapidly-fluctuating
`
`voltages because, when the output power needs to be quickly increased and
`
`decreased, turning the switcher on and off to handle such variations can be costly.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`31.
`
`In light of these unique benefits provided by a switcher and an
`
`envelope amplifier, the overall system efficiency can be optimized if the two
`
`suppliers of energy are operated in tandem such that (1) the switcher, which is
`
`more efficient, provides a majority of energy to the PA; and (2) the envelope
`
`amplifier, which is less efficient but can more quickly adjust its output, provides
`
`only the fast-changing (i.e., high frequency) portion of the energy to the PA.
`
`32.
`
`In such a system comprising dual sources of PA supply voltage,
`
`the ’558 Patent discloses at least two inventive approaches to further improving the
`
`overall efficiency. First, the ’558 Patent discloses connecting a boost converter
`
`(which “boosts” or increases the battery voltage to a higher level) only with the
`
`envelope amplifier, and not the switcher, to reduce overall usage of the boost
`
`converter. Because the switcher provides power most of the time, the efficiency
`
`drag from the boost converter is thus limited to the time in which the envelope
`
`amplifier provides power. See id. at 8:17-23. Moreover, the ’558 Patent teaches
`
`that the boost converter is operated dynamically, i.e., “only when needed for large
`
`amplitude envelope.” See id. at 6:29-33, 5:31-49, 8:55-62. When a boosted
`
`voltage is not needed, the envelope amplifier operates based on the battery voltage
`
`without relying on the boost converter. See id. at 6:29-33, 5:31-49. By
`
`minimizing the efficiency drop caused by the addition of a boost converter,
`
`the ’558 Patent introduces an efficient and practical solution to integrate a boost
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`converter into an envelope tracking circuitry. I refer to this feature as “selective
`
`boost.”
`
`33. Second, the ’558 Patent discloses that an “offset” may be used to
`
`increase the amount of current generated by the switcher. See Ex. 1001 at 7:41-48.
`
`The switcher includes a current sense amplifier that senses the current generated
`
`from the linear envelope amplifier and uses that current to output voltages that
`
`determine the duty cycle of a switcher.
`
`34. For example, in Figure 5 of the ’558 Patent, when the Current Sense
`
`Amplifier 330 senses a high output current from the Envelope Amplifier, it
`
`provides a low sensed voltage to Driver 332, turning the switcher “on.” See id. at
`
`5:7-10. Conversely, when the Current Sense Amplifier 330 senses a low output
`
`current from the Envelope Amplifier, it provides a high sensed voltage to driver
`
`332, turning the switcher “off.” See id. at 5:18-20. As explained above, it is only
`
`during the “on” state that the Switcher provides current, through the inductor 142,
`
`to the PA. Thus, the longer the switcher is turned “on,” the larger the current
`
`supplied to the PA.
`
`35. By using an offset to change the output of the current sense amplifier,
`
`one can increase the current supplied by the switcher. There are a number of ways
`
`to implement such an offset feature. For example, as provided by the ’558 Patent,
`
`one can add an offset to increase “the pulse width of an output signal from current
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`sense amplifier.” See id. at 7:30-32. A pulse width is a commonly used term in
`
`digital signaling and simply refers to the duration of the time the signal is in a
`
`particular state (i.e., high or low). In the context of the embodiment shown in
`
`Figure 5, increasing the pulse width of an output signal from current sense
`
`amplifier would increase the on-time of the switcher, causing it to generate a larger
`
`current to the PA.
`
`B.
`36.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’558 Patent
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the ’558 Patent. Following
`
`is a brief summary of key events.
`
`37. The initial application (Application No. 13/167,659) was filed on June
`
`23, 2011.
`
`38. On November 23, 2012, original claims 1, 2, 6-17, 19-21, 24-26 were
`
`rejected under 35 USC 102(a) as being anticipated by Kim, et al., titled “High
`
`Efficiency and Wideband Envelope Tracking Power Amplifier with Sweet Spot
`
`Tracking” (“Kim”) (Ex. 1013). The Examiner reasoned that Kim discloses a
`
`hybrid switching supply modulator for an RF PA consisting of a 3.4 V to 5 V boost
`
`converter and a linear amplifier. See Ex. 1002 at 61-63. The Examiner also
`
`indicated that original claims 4, 5, 18, 22, and 23 would be allowable if rewritten in
`
`independent form. Original claims 4, 5 and 18 recited an op-amp, a driver, a
`
`PMOS transistor having a source receiving either the boosted voltage or the supply
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`voltage, and an NMOS transistor, and original claims 22 and 23 recited a summer,
`
`a current sense amplifier, and a driver.
`
`39.
`
`In response, the applicants amended certain claims as highlighted
`
`below.
`
`See Ex. 1002 at 79-80.
`
`40. The inclusion of selective boost is reflected in both the envelope
`
`amplifier limitation reciting the different modes of operation and also in the PMOS
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`transistor limitations reciting that its source receives the boosted supply voltage or
`
`the first supply voltage. Thus, with respect to Kim, the applicants explain that Kim
`
`does not teach, among other things, “a [PMOS] transistor having . . . a source
`
`receiving the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage.” Id. at 87.
`
`41. The basis on which Kim was distinguished is consistent with my
`
`interpretation of Kim. Kim teaches using a 5 V boost converter to achieve “higher
`
`gain, efficiency, output power and wider bandwidth.” Ex 1013 at 255; see also id.
`
`at 256 (“By boosting the supply voltage of the linear amplifier, PA’s supply
`
`voltage increases up to 4.5 V and peak output power of the PA also increases to
`
`33.4 dBm.”). Kim’s exemplary implementation of the linear amplifier further
`
`shows that the output stage PMOS transistor is only connected to the output of the
`
`boost converter.
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`3.4 V
`
`
`
`
`
` Hulcrclic
`rump: ralnr
`
`Block diagram of
`Fig.3.
`modulator with boost converter.
`
`the hybrid switching supply
`
`
`
`Fig. 4 Wideband linear amplifier.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`

`42. On July 26, 2013, the Examiner allowed all claims but original claim
`
`8, citing U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0293253 (“Khlat”) as allegedly anticipating claim 8.
`
`See Ex. 1002 at 161-162. In response, the applicant cancelled original claim 8 (see
`
`id. at 176), and the patent issued shortly thereafter. See id. at 185-191.
`
`C. Level of Skill in the Art
`43.
`I understand that Petitioner has proposed that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art relevant to the ’558 Patent would have had a Master’s degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science plus at least
`
`two years of relevant experience; or a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus
`
`at least four years of relevant experience, where “relevant experience,” in the
`
`context of the ’558 Patent, refers to experience with mobile device architecture, as
`
`well as transmission and power circuitry for radio frequency devices.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`I do not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the ’558
`
`Patent, I must do so based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the relevant priority date. I understand that the ’558 Patent was filed on June 23,
`
`2011.
`
`
`
`D. Claim Construction
`1.
`“Current Sense Amplifier” (Claim 12)
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`46.
`
`I understand that Petitioner applied an interpretation of the term
`
`“current sense amplifier” to mean “amplifier that produces a voltage from a
`
`current.” See Paper 2 at 37-38. I do not contest this interpretation.
`
`2.
`“Envelope Signal” (Claim 12)
`I understand that Petitioner applied an interpretation of the term
`
`47.
`
`“envelope signal” to mean “signal indicative of the upper bound of the output RF
`
`signal.” See Paper 2 at 38. I do not contest this interpretation.
`
`3.
`Selective Boost Limitations (Claim 13)
`I understand that Petitioner and Dr. Apsel dispute whether claim 13 of
`
`48.
`
`the ’558 Patent requires a selective boost. See Paper 2 at 72-73; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 132,
`
`141. Specifically, claim 13 recites “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.” Petitioner argues that the plain
`
`language of claim 13 “requires only that the envelope amplifier operates based on
`
`one or the other of the first supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage,” and that
`
`claim 13 “does not require the envelope amplifier to be able to select either the first
`
`supply voltage or the boosted supply at any given time.” Paper 2 at 72. See also
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 132, 141. I disagree.
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`

`

`49.
`
`In my opinion, it is clear from the plain language of claim 13, and
`
`from the specification and prosecution history of the ’558 Patent, that the claims
`
`require the envelope amplifier to operate, selectively, based on either the first
`
`supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage (referred to herein as a “selective
`
`boost”).
`
`50. A POSA would understand that for the operation of the envelope
`
`amplifier to be “based on the first supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage,”
`
`the envelope amplifier must be configured such that it has the option to operate on
`
`either supply voltage. An “envelope amplifier” requires a power supply to operate.
`
`Though independent claim 12 does not explicitly recite the power supply used in
`
`the envelope amplifier, a POSA would understand the envelope amplifier needs a
`
`power supply to operate. A POSA would understand that the claim 13 limitation
`
`of “based on the first supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage” specifies the
`
`supply voltages on which the envelope amplifier can selectively operate. A POSA
`
`would understand this to be a “selective boost.”
`
`51. The specification is consistent with this interpretation. When the ’558
`
`specification recites “based on the first supply voltage or the boosted supply
`
`voltage,” it frequently elaborates with an example that requires a selective boost:
`
`“In one design, the envelope amplifier may further
`receive the first supply voltage and may generate the
`second supply voltage based on either the first supply
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`

`

`voltage or the boosted supply voltage. For example, the
`envelope amplifier may generate the second supply
`voltage (i) based on the boosted supply voltage if the
`envelope signal exceeds a first threshold and/or if the
`first supply voltage is below a second threshold or (ii)
`based on the first supply voltage otherwise. Ex. 1001 at
`1:42-50 (emphasis added).
`
`In one design, the envelope amplifier may further receive
`the first supply voltage and may generate the second
`supply voltage based on the first supply voltage or the
`boosted supply voltage. For example, the envelope
`amplifier may generate the second supply voltage (i)
`based on the boosted supply voltage if the envelope
`signal exceeds a first threshold, or if the first supply
`voltage is below a second threshold, or both or (ii) based
`on the first supply voltage otherwise. Id. at 8:55-62
`(emphasis added).
`
`52. The ’558 Patent mentions these phrases only three times without also
`
`including the emphasized passages above. See id. at 8:62-9:17; 9:21-36; 10:19-29.
`
`But each time, the passages explicitly reference Figures 3 and 5 (annotated below),
`
`both of which explicitly illustrate a selective boost. As I have highlighted below,
`
`Figures 3 and 5 illustrate embodiments that allows a system to alternate between
`
`Vbat and Vboost, so that when the battery voltage becomes low, a boosted voltage
`
`can be used instead.
`
`
`
`-22-
`
`

`

`#wwwwewmnM+¢WWW4+MH~¢¥MFH
`
`Vhfi
`
`9w
`
`nC:
`
`c2
`
`3.
`
`V.
`
`.m
`
`Swflthw
`
`vm,mm»3
`
`,.LiWmmamA
`1mavmCssssssssssssssssssssssss2::.wW1,in!
`
`
`H6. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`-23-
`
`-23-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`53. The ’558 Patent describes, just as the language of various claims
`
`require, that “[i]n one design, envelope amplifier 170a operates based on the
`
`Vboost voltage only when needed and based on the Vbat voltage the remaining
`
`time in order to improve efficiency.” Id. at 5:31-33. As the ’558 Patent explains,
`
`“[w]hen a high Vpa voltage is needed for power amplifier 130 due to a large
`
`envelope on the RFout signal, the C1 control signal is at logic low, and the C2
`
`control signal is at logic high. In this case, boost converter 180 is enabled and
`
`generates the Vboost voltage, PMOS transistor 318 is turned on and provides the
`
`Vboost voltage to the source of PMOS transistor 314, and PMOS transistor 320 is
`
`
`
`-24-
`
`

`

`turned off. Conversely, when a high Vpa voltage is not needed for power amplifier
`
`130, the C1 control signal is at logic high, and the C2 control signal is at logic low.
`
`In this case, boost converter 180 is disabled, PMOS transistor 318 is turned off,
`
`and PMOS transistor 320 is turned on and provides the Vbat voltage to