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