`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong ................................ 3
`1.
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Contradicts The
`Plain Claim Language ................................................................. 3
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Would Exclude
`Disclosed Embodiments .............................................................. 6
`Patent Owner’s Remaining Arguments Have No Merit ............. 8
`3.
`III. Grounds ............................................................................................................ 9
`A.
`Patent Owner Concedes That Claims 12 and 14 are
`Unpatentable ........................................................................................ 10
`The Petition Demonstrates Motivation to Combine Chu with
`Choi 2010 ............................................................................................ 10
`1. Motivation Comes From The References Themselves ............. 10
`2.
`Petition Explains How To Modify Chu In View Of Choi
`2010 ........................................................................................... 17
`Patent Owner Is Wrong That Petition Fails To Demonstrate a
`Motivation to Combine Chu and Choi 2010 with Myers .................... 17
`1.
`Patent Owner Is Wrong That Choi 2010 Teaches Away
`From “Selective Boost” ............................................................ 18
`A POSA Would Have Modified Chu and Choi 2010 To
`Apply Myers’ Power Selection Functionality .......................... 21
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”) confirms that the challenged claims of
`
`the ʼ558 patent are invalid. Indeed, the POR does not challenge Petitioner’s
`
`mapping of the limitations to the cited references. Instead, the Patent Owner tries
`
`to avoid the prior art by advancing an improper claim construction, and by wrongly
`
`suggesting that the prior art references would not have been combined.
`
`First, Patent Owner seeks to re-write the elements of its claims in the guise
`
`of claim construction. But its proffered construction contradicts the surrounding
`
`claim language, would exclude disclosed embodiments, and is inconsistent with
`
`the specification’s teaching – as Patent Owner’s own expert, Dr. Arthur Kelley,
`
`admitted in deposition. See Ex. 1028 [Kelley Transcript], 35:15-36:1; 37:5-16;
`
`37:20-38:11; 133:4-135:9; EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d
`
`1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (rejecting construction that reads out embodiments);
`
`see also Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., 257 F.3d 1364, 1378 (same).
`
`Second, Patent Owner’s critique that the motivation to combine Chu with
`
`Choi 2010 does not appear “within the references themselves” (POR, 26) is wrong
`
`both legally and factually. On the law, there is no requirement that motive must be
`
`found within the four corners of the references being combined. This has been
`
`clear since KSR rejected such “[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders
`
`recourse to common sense,” holding them “neither necessary under our case law
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`nor consistent with it.” KSR Intl. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
`
`Consistent with KSR, the Petition demonstrated the common knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) using secondary references that show
`
`how the advantages of modifying a system like Chu to include a boost converter
`
`like Choi 2010 were very well-known. Patent Owner’s argument is also factually
`
`incorrect. As the Petition demonstrated (Petition, 67-71), motivation to modify
`
`Chu comes directly from Choi 2010’s express teaching of the advantages of adding
`
`a boost converter to a system like Chu’s – advantages to which Patent Owner’s
`
`expert admitted in deposition. See Ex. 1028, 105:20-106:4; 155:7-156:6.
`
`Third, Patent Owner’s suggestion that, contrary to the Board’s institution
`
`decision (Decision (“DI”), 21-22; IPR2018-01153, Paper 9, 22-24), a POSA would
`
`lack motivation to combine Chu and Choi 2010 with Myers ignores Myers’
`
`express teaching on the benefits of implementing so-called “selective boost” in
`
`power management circuits. Teaching that Dr. Kelley conceded at deposition.
`
`(Ex. 1028, 100:6-9; 101:6-13; 152:21-153:4; 264:21-265:12; 281:6-282:2.)
`
`For these reasons, as set forth more fully below, Patent Owner’s arguments
`
`should be rejected and the challenged claims found unpatentable.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong
`Patent Owner contends that the term “based on the first supply voltage or the
`
`boosted supply voltage” should be construed such that “the envelope amplifier
`
`must be able to operate, selectively, based on either the first supply voltage or the
`
`boosted supply voltage (referred to herein as a ‘selective boost’).” (POR, 9.)
`
`According to Patent Owner, an amplifier that received only the first voltage or only
`
`the boosted voltage would not meet this limitation. This proposed construction is
`
`far from the broadest reasonable construction of “or,” is contrary to the plain
`
`meaning, and would exclude disclosed embodiments. It should be rejected.
`
`1. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Contradicts The Plain
`Claim Language
`Claim 13 recites an “envelope amplifier” that “operates based on the first
`
`supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage.” Ex. 1001, 13:13-15. As Dr. Kelley
`
`conceded, the term “or” is a conjunction that identifies two alternatives: this “or”
`
`that. (Ex. 1028, 130:10-18 (“Q. I’m asking at the Schoolhouse Rock level, or is a
`
`conjunction that joins two alternatives, correct? A. Well, if we’re going to import
`
`Schoolhouse Rock into the deposition, in that context, yes, it is.”).) Under its plain
`
`English meaning, the requirement for an amplifier that operates based on “the first
`
`supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage” is met by an amplifier that operates
`
`based on either alternative alone. (Id. at 130:19-131:2 (“Q.… If I said I would like
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`coffee or tea, you could give me tea and that would meet my requirement, right?
`
`A. In that hypothetical abstract outside the bounds of the ’558, sure.”).) Patent
`
`Owner has identified no sound basis to deviate from that broad plain meaning.
`
`To the contrary, the POR concedes that the common meaning of “or” in
`
`patent claims is to recite alternatives. See, POR, 23 (“The use of ‘or’ is sometimes
`
`an acceptable mechanism for claiming alternatives such that only one of the
`
`limitations need be found in the prior art to support anticipation.”).) And that is
`
`exactly how Hon. Dana M. Sabraw construed “or” in related litigation on the ’558
`
`patent before the United States District Court for the Southern District of
`
`California. (Ex. 1026 [Claim Constr. Order, Dkt. 351 (17‐cv‐1375)] at 5-6
`
`(holding the limitation “a source receiving the boosted supply voltage or the first
`
`supply voltage” in claim 6 does not require “selective boost”).) Indeed, Dr. Kelley
`
`admitted Patent Owner’s proffered construction contradicts Judge Sabraw:
`
`Q. And just to be clear, you're giving an opinion that is contrary to
`Judge Sabraw’s claim construction, right?
`I understand what the Judge did. And I’ve reached a different
`conclusion.
`
`A.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Ex. 1028, 147:10-151. But if “or” covers either alternative alone under the Phillips
`
`standard that Judge Sabraw used, it is certainly at least that broad under the
`
`broadest reasonable construction rule applicable here. Facebook, Inc. v.
`
`Pragmatus AV, LLC, 582 Fed. Appx. 864, 869 (“The broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of a claim term may be the same as or broader than the construction
`
`of a term under the Phillips standard. But it cannot be narrower.”) An envelope
`
`amplifier that operates based on either one of the recited alternatives – e.g., the
`
`“boosted supply voltage” alone – would thus meet the claim.
`
`Moreover, other claims demonstrate that Patent Owner knew how to recite a
`
`“selective boost” requirement when it wanted – using language different from
`
`claim 13. Independent claim 6 and dependent claim 7 provide one such example.
`
`Much like claim 13, claim 6 recites “a source receiving the boosted supply voltage
`
`or the first supply voltage….” Claims 6 is therefore met using only one of the
`
`boosted or first supply voltage. Indeed, as noted above, Judge Sabraw found that
`
`this claim does not require “selective boost.” (Ex. 1026, 5-6.) By contrast,
`
`dependent claim 7 adds the limitation “wherein the supply generator is operative to
`
`generate the second supply voltage based on the envelope signal and either the
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Objections omitted in transcript quotations.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage.” If claim 6 already required
`
`“selective boost,” then claim 7 would add nothing. But consistent with claim
`
`differentiation doctrine, claim 7’s additional language “and either” has meaning.
`
`For that reason, claim 7 could not be read to require only one of the boosted or first
`
`supply voltage. It is therefore that additional language appearing in claim 7 (which
`
`does not appear in either claim 6 or 13) that adds a requirement for the amplifier to
`
`be able to select between “either” the boosted voltage “or” the first supply voltage.
`
`Because claim 13 (like claim 6) lacks this “and either” language, it has no such
`
`requirement. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“a
`
`dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that
`
`the limitation … is not present in the independent claim.”) Ex. 1027, ¶7.
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Would Exclude
`Disclosed Embodiments
`Patent Owner’s construction should also be rejected, because it improperly
`
`excludes disclosed embodiments. EPOS, 766 F.3d at 1347; Dow, 257 F.3d, at
`
`1378; Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298,
`
`1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Specifically, starting at column 8, line 24, the ’558
`
`specification teaches “another design of supporting operation with a lower battery
`
`voltage[.]” (Ex. 1001, 8:24-25.) In this embodiment, “the entire envelope tracker
`
`is operated based on the Vboost voltage from boost converter 180” alone (i.e.,
`
`solely based on the “boosted supply voltage”), without ever operating based on
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`battery voltage (i.e., never based on the “first supply voltage”). (Id. at 8:25-26.)
`
`As Dr. Kelley admitted in deposition, Patent Owner’s construction would exclude
`
`this embodiment:
`
`Q.
`
`If you're right that the selective boost and the or means I have to
`
`be able to use either boost or first, then under that circumstance,
`
`claim [6] and 13 would not cover the embodiment at column 8
`
`line 24 that uses Vboost alone. Is that fair?
`
`A.
`
`I think that’s fair.
`
`(Ex. 1028, 134:12-18.) Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction
`
`would exclude this disclosed embodiment, it should be rejected. EPOS, 766
`
`F.3d at 1347; Dow, 257 F.3d, at 1378; Anchor, 340 F.3d at 1308.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument is also an improper attempt to limit claim 13
`
`solely to one disclosed embodiment (to the exclusion of others). For example,
`
`Patent Owner contends that column 1, lines 42-50 discloses a form of “selective
`
`boost.” Whether the specification here means what Patent Owner says is
`
`debatable. But what is beyond dispute is that column 1 discloses merely “one
`
`design” as an “example” that in no way limits the claims:
`
`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 voltage or the boosted supply voltage. For
`example, the envelope amplifier may generate the second supply
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`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, 1:42-50. (emphasis added).) Patent Owner’s citation to 8:55-62 is
`
`similarly misplaced. (Id., 8:55-62 (“In one design …. For example, …”).) As the
`
`Federal Circuit has admonished, confining claims to one disclosed embodiment is
`
`the “cardinal sin” of claim construction. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1320 (“although the
`
`specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have
`
`repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”); see also
`
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(“a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read
`
`into a claim”); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (same); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003) (cautioning against “importing limitations”). Patent Owner’s blatant attempt
`
`to do so here should be rejected. Ex. 1027, ¶10.
`
`3. Patent Owner’s Remaining Arguments Have No Merit
`Finally, Patent Owner suggests that Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Alyssa Apsel,
`
`somehow “agreed that it would not make sense to interpret the boosted supply
`
`voltage as purely optional in the context of the claims” (POR, 24), because “when
`
`asked about a similar ‘based on’ limitation in claim 6,” she supposedly “admitted
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`that it makes sense to interpret ‘based on’ as requiring a boosted supply voltage to
`
`be an available supply voltage.” Id.
`
`The language from claim 6 that Dr. Apsel addressed in this testimony recites
`
`“generat[ing] a second supply voltage for the power amplifier based on the
`
`envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage.” (Ex. 2006 [Apsel Transcript] at
`
`41:21-23; Ex. 1001, 11:49-51.) This is not similar to claim 13, which recites “or”
`
`not “and.”2 (Ex. 1001, claim 13.) By reciting “or,” claim 13 is clear that either one
`
`of the “boosted supply voltage” or “the first supply voltage” is alone sufficient to
`
`meet the claim’s requirement. Ex. 1027, ¶12.
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction should thus be rejected. Ex. 1027,
`
`¶13.
`
`III. GROUNDS
`As the Board recognized, “Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s
`
`mapping of the limitations to the cited prior art.” DI, 22. Patent Owner does not
`
`dispute that the prior art in Grounds I-IV disclosed all limitations of the asserted
`
`claims. POR, 19-44. Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 79-111. Patent Owner argues solely a lack of
`
`
`
` 2
`
` It is also different from the relevant part of claim 6 that Judge Sabraw
`
`interpreted, which appears at column 11, lines 58-59. (Ex. 1001, claim 6.)
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`motivation to combine. However, Patent Owner’s argument ignores explicit
`
`reasons and rationales presented in the Petition and Dr. Apsel’s Declaration that
`
`would have motivated a POSA to combine these references. Ex. 1027, ¶14.
`
`If the Board rejects Patent Owner’s motivation argument (as it should) and
`
`confirms its preliminary finding “that Petitioner provides sufficient articulated
`
`rationales for combining the references,” (DI, 22) then claim 13 should be found
`
`unpatentable for the reasons stated in the Petition and the Decision on Institution.
`
`Ex. 1027, ¶15.
`
`A.
`Patent Owner Concedes That Claims 12 and 14 are Unpatentable
`Patent Owner admits that claims 12 and 14 are unpatentable and agrees to
`
`cancel these claims. POR, 1 (“Patent Owner does not contest [Grounds I and II]
`
`and agrees to cancel claims 12 and 14.”)
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Demonstrates Motivation to Combine Chu with Choi
`2010
`1. Motivation Comes From The References Themselves
`According to Patent Owner, Chu and Choi 2010 “address different problems
`
`with different solutions that are in tension with each other” (POR, 25) and their
`
`proposed combination is based on “hindsight reconstruction” (Id., 26). This
`
`argument is based upon the contention that a POSA would “either maximize
`
`efficiency at the cost of output power degradation (like in Chu), or minimize the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`output power degradation at the cost of reducing efficiency (like in Choi 2010),”
`
`not both. (Id., 27.) Patent Owner is mistaken. Ex. 1027, ¶17.
`
`First, accepting Patent Owner’s argument would require accepting that Chu
`
`is not interested in the output signal quality of its supply modulator (which relates
`
`to output power degradation) and that Choi 2010 is not interested in the power
`
`dissipation of its supply modulator (i.e., efficiency). It would require accepting, in
`
`other words, that these are mutually exclusive concerns. But Dr. Kelley testified
`
`that engineers in this field commonly “worry about both of those” concerns when
`
`designing power management circuits:
`
`Q. And 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?
`I'm not sure I'd characterize them as being competing. There’s
`certainly simultaneous concerns. You worry about both of those
`in terms of making your power supply work properly.
`
`A.
`
`(Ex. 1028, 13:12-20; see also, id., 13:21-14:2.) That was just as true in the
`
`prior art as it is today:
`
`Q. So we said at the outset that a person of skill in the art would
`understand that in designing power management, you want to
`have one goal of energy efficiency and also a goal of having a
`signal that actually works; it isn't distorted. Do you recall that?
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`A. Yes.
`Q. That was true in 2010, right?
`A. Yes.
`Q.
`So it was true before the '558 patent, right?
`A.
`I guess that's true.
`
`(Ex. 1028, 259:7-18.) Ex. 1027, ¶18.
`
`It defies logic to accept that, because Chu addresses efficiency and Choi
`
`2010 addresses output power degradation, a POSA would not have been motivated
`
`to combine the two to reap both benefits. This is particularly true in the design of
`
`power management circuits like those in Chu and Choi 2010, where the competing
`
`demands of efficiency and output power degradation are a standard engineering
`
`trade-off. (POR, 25 (“Choi 2010 accepts the trade-off in efficiency in order to
`
`achieve a solution to its identified problem of output power degradation.”).) A
`
`POSA would thus consider both demands, and would not focus all efforts on only
`
`one to the exclusion of the other as the Patent Owner argues. See, POR, 27
`
`(“either maximize efficiency at the cost of output power degradation (like in Chu),
`
`or minimize the output power degradation at the cost of reducing efficiency (like in
`
`Choi 2010)”). Ex. 1027, ¶19.
`
`Second, Patent Owner’s suggestion that Petitioner’s combination “is not
`
`based on any teachings within the references themselves” (POR, 26) is factually
`
`wrong and attempts to distort the record. As an initial matter, the Petition cited
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`clear reasons to combine Chu and Choi 2010 that were articulated within the
`
`references themselves. It explained, for example, how Choi 2010 explicitly taught
`
`advantages of modifying a system like Chu to include a boost converter like that
`
`disclosed in Choi 2010’s Figure 5. (See Petition, 67-68 (“These advantages are
`
`specifically taught by Choi 2010, and would have motivated a POSA to modify
`
`Chu accordingly.”).) The Petition then identified explicit disclosures in Choi 2010
`
`(citing in Choi 2010 at 1074 and 1077) that suggest integrating a boost converter
`
`for a “stable operation” of the supply modulator and for allowing “robust
`
`performance over the battery voltage variation.” (See, e.g., Petition at 68.) Ex.
`
`1027, ¶20.
`
`Moreover, when asked about these motivations to combine at his deposition,
`
`Dr. Kelley readily agreed with Petitioner’s explanation. For example, Dr. Kelley
`
`testified that Choi 2010 teaches use of a boost converter to address battery
`
`degradation just like the Petition explained:
`
`Q. Now, Choi 2010 does talk about battery degradation, right?
`
`A.
`
`Right.
`
`Q. And Choi 2010 says you can use this boost converter to address the
`
`battery degradation problem, right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`(Ex. 1028, 105:20-106:4.) He also agreed that Choi 2010’s boost converter had the
`
`advantage of preventing a linear amplifier’s output from degrading when the
`
`battery depletes, just as the Petition explained:
`
`Q.
`
`Choi 2010's boost converter prevents a linear amplifier's output power
`
`from degrading when the battery depletes, right?
`
`A.
`
`That's true.
`
`(Id., 156:3-6; see also, id., 155:7-156:2.) What is more, Dr. Kelley conceded that
`
`if Chu’s battery degrades, the power amplifier would not be able to perform – a
`
`specific motive to make Petitioner’s proposed combination:
`
`Q.
`
`If the battery voltage gets too low, the output signal will become
`
`distorted, right?
`
`A.
`
`The output signal of the power amplifier. That’s right. If you don’t
`
`have enough battery voltage, Chu will not function and the power
`
`amplifier will not be able to perform.
`
`(Compare id., 165:17-22 with Petition, 67-71.) In short, Dr. Kelley conceded the
`
`exact motivations to combine described in the Petition. Ex. 1027, ¶21.
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner is wrong to contend that the reason to combine
`
`must come directly from the combined art itself. KSR rejected such “[r]igid
`
`preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense” as “neither
`
`necessary under our case law nor consistent with it.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Motivation may come from industry trends, the ordinary creativity of a POSA, or
`
`indeed from “common sense” in the art at that time. Id. (“A person of ordinary
`
`skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”). The Petition thus
`
`explained, corroborated by evidence from secondary references, how the
`
`advantages of modifying Chu to include a boost converter like Choi 2010 would
`
`have been well-known to POSAs at that time. Petition, 68-70. Ex. 1027, ¶22.
`
`Even Patent Owner admits that “efficiency and output distortion/robustness
`
`problems were generally known in the art” (POR, 26) – the exact concerns that
`
`would have motivated the proposed combination of Chu and Choi210. The
`
`Petition addressed these same specific concerns, and explained in detail how they
`
`would have motivated this combination, exactly as the Board has recognized. See
`
`Decision on Institution of related IPR2018-01153 (IPR2018-01153, Paper 9), 21.
`
`(“Petitioner cites secondary references in support of the advantages for modifying
`
`Chu’s supply modulator to incorporate the boost converter of Choi 2010” and
`
`“provides argument and evidence that supports the combination … in accordance
`
`with the teachings of these secondary references.”).) Ex. 1027, ¶23.
`
`Third, Dr. Kelley conceded the reason why a POSA would modify Chu to
`
`include Choi 2010’s boost converter – namely, that doing so would extend Chu’s
`
`battery life:
`
`15
`
`
`
`A.
`Q.
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Q. … If I implemented the boost converter of Choi in Chu such
`that Chu operated off of battery power until the battery depleted
`and then I switched to using boost, that would save power,
`right?
`That would extend the useful life of the battery.
`Right. By conserving power during the portion of time where
`it's operating off of the battery only, right?
`By both conserving power during the time it's operating off the
`battery and then you turn on the boost, and it lets you more
`fully deplete the battery before you run out of battery.
`Q. Okay. And you would agree with me that extending the useful
`life of a battery is something that is good, right?
`A. Yes.
`
`A.
`
`Ex. 1028, 281:6-282:2. Dr. Kelley testified this modification was well within the
`
`skill of a POSA:
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`It was within the skill of the person of ordinary skill to build the
`circuit that would switch between the Vbat shown in Choi ‐‐
`sorry ‐‐ shown in Chu Figure 4 and the boosted voltage of the
`boost converter from Choi Figure 5, correct?
`If you decided to do that, yes.
`
`Ex. 1028, 284:6-12. In short, the evidence fully demonstrates motivation for this
`
`combination. Ex. 1027, ¶24.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`2. Petition Explains How To Modify Chu In View Of Choi 2010
`Patent Owner further argues that “how or why the references would be
`
`combined to produce the claimed invention” is “missing from the prior art.” (POR,
`
`28.) Here again, Patent Owner is mistaken. The Petition and the prior art explain
`
`how Chu would have been modified to incorporate the boosted voltage teachings
`
`of Choi 2010. For example, the Petition explains how to “incorporate a boost
`
`converter to boost the supply voltage Vbattery to a higher voltage to produce a
`
`boosted supply voltage for use by the envelope amplifier.” (Petition, 65.) The
`
`Petition also maps (with color coding) corresponding components of the Chu and
`
`Choi 2010 supply modulators to further illustrate where the boost converter should
`
`be incorporated to boost Chu’s supply voltage Vbattery. (Id., 64-66. Ex. 1027, ¶25.)
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner Is Wrong That Petition Fails To Demonstrate a
`Motivation to Combine Chu and Choi 2010 with Myers
`If the Board rejects Patent Owner’s “selective-boost” claim construction,
`
`then the Board need not reach Patent Owner’s argument about the alleged lack of
`
`motivation to combine Chu, Choi 2010, and Myers because claim 13 would be
`
`invalid based on the combination of Chu and Choi 2010 alone. However, even if
`
`the Board were to accept Patent Owner’s mistaken construction, claim 13 would
`
`still be invalid based upon this combination in view of Myers. Ex. 1027, ¶26.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`1. Patent Owner Is Wrong That Choi 2010 Teaches Away From
`“Selective Boost”
`Patent Owner argues that “a POSA would not have combined Myers with
`
`Petitioner’s hypothetical Chu/Choi 2010 combination because Choi 2010 teaches
`
`away from the use of a selective boost voltage.” (POR, 32.) Patent Owner is dead
`
`wrong. Nothing in Choi 2010 teaches away from this combination, and Patent
`
`Owner has failed to even come close to showing the legal requirement for
`
`“teaching away.” Moreover, the admitted prior art evidence from the ’558 patent
`
`itself corroborates that there was no teaching away and, to the contrary, was
`
`substantial motive to modify Choi 2010 to implement “selective boost.” Ex. 1027,
`
`¶27.
`
`First, Patent Owner is wrong to contend Choi 2010 teaches away.
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner argues “boost is not merely a general preference [in
`
`Choi 2010]; Choi 2010 discloses no other manner to achieve its objective of
`
`minimizing the degradation of output power.” This assertion is incorrect, because
`
`Choi 2010 in fact teaches using the boosted voltage to “achiev[e] the robust
`
`operation against the battery depletion.” Ex. 1006, 1076. Choi 2010 thus does not
`
`teach away from “selective boost” because a POSA would have understood that a
`
`battery supply could have been used to selectively supply voltage when the battery
`
`has not depleted and a boosted supply when it has. Ex. 1027, ¶28.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Second, in order for a reference to teach away, “a person of ordinary skill,
`
`upon reading the reference, [must] be discouraged from following the path set out
`
`in the reference, or [must] be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
`
`taken” in the claim. Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013). A reference that “merely expresses a general preference for an
`
`alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
`
`investigation into” the claimed invention does not teach away. Id. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to demonstrate any such criticism, discrediting, or discouragement in
`
`Choi 2010. Rather, Choi 2010 merely teaches that one way to minimize the impact
`
`of a degrading battery voltage is to boost that voltage. Choi 2010 expresses, in
`
`other words, a preference. Nothing about that teaching discredits or discourages
`
`improving the efficiency of Choi 2010’s boosting by using the boosted voltage
`
`only when needed – for example, only when the power requirements of the
`
`transmission cannot be satisfied by the battery supply. Indeed, as Dr. Kelley
`
`admits, this modest modification would result in power savings, and that a circuit
`
`designer would have been more than able to implement such a selectable voltage
`
`supply. (Ex. 1028, 152:21-153:4 “Q. Do you agree that a person of ordinary skill
`
`would have known how to select between two power sources? A. There are many
`
`ways to do that. And so in a very broad question like that I think somebody
`
`might.”).) Ex. 1027, ¶29.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Third, Patent Owner’s argument contradicts the ’558 patent. In discussing
`
`prior art Figure 2A, the ’558 patent explains it would be wasteful to operate an
`
`amplifier with the maximum supply voltage at all times. (See, Ex. 1001, 4:7-9
`
`(“The difference between the battery voltage and the envelope of the RFout signal
`
`represents wasted power….”); Ex. 1028, 173:17-175:2. Choi 2010 similarly
`
`discloses that “[t]he supply voltage of the linear amplifier is boosted to 5V, and it
`
`enables the RF PA operating with the maximum 4.5V supply voltage.” (Ex. 1006,
`
`1077.) A POSA would thus have known that operating Choi 2010’s amplifier with
`
`the boosted voltage at all times needlessly wastes power, as this evidence
`
`corroborates. Ex. 1027, ¶30.
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to reduce this waste. Figure 2B of the
`
`’558 patent depicts, for example, the prior art Average Power Tracking (“APT”)
`
`technique. Ex. 1028, 175:3-10. Plot 270 in Figure 2B (reproduced below) shows
`
`reducing wasted power by selecting between different voltage supplies for an
`
`amplifier. It shows switching between a first (lower) supply voltage highlighted
`
`blue to a second (boosted) supply voltage highlighted red:
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 2B
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 2B
`
`As the Patent Owner concedes, selecting between the different voltage supplies in
`
`this way was a known technique to “reduce wasted power.” Ex. 1001, 4:18; Ex.
`
`1028; Ex. 1028, 173:17-175:2; 175:3-10. A POSA reading Choi 2010 would have
`
`been aware of such techniques (e.g., APT), and would thus have been motivated to
`
`modify Chu as described above in order to take advantage of such known, standard
`
`strategies. Ex. 1027, ¶31.
`
`2. A POSA Would Have Modified Chu and Choi 2010 To Apply
`Myers’ Power Selection Functionality
`Patent Owner argues that “[b]efore the disclosure of the ’558 Patent, a
`
`POSA [would] either maximize efficiency at the cost of output power degradation
`
`(like in Chu), or minimize the output power degradation at the cost of reducing
`
`efficiency (like in Choi 2010). The prior art did not suggest any way to achieve
`
`both of these benefits.” POR, 38 (internal citations omitted.) Ex. 1027, ¶32.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Patent Owner is wrong. Myers, a prior art patent that issued twelve years
`
`before the ’558 patent was filed, proposes one solution for achieving both benefits.
`
`Specifically, Myers teaches that choosing the power sourc