`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Claims 1-9
`____________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01153
`____________________________________________
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF ALYSSA APSEL, PH.D.
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
`
`Intel v. Qualcomm
`Exhibit 1127
`IPR2018-01153
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 2
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong ................................ 2
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Contradicts The
`
`Plain Claim Language ................................................................. 2
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Would Exclude
`Disclosed Embodiments .............................................................. 5
`Patent Owner’s Remaining Arguments Have No Merit ............. 7
`
`III. GROUNDS ...................................................................................................... 8
`A.
`The Petition Demonstrates Motivation to Combine Chu with
`Choi 2010 .............................................................................................. 9
`The Motivation To Combine Chu and Choi 2010 Is
`
`Rooted In References Themselves And Common
`Knowledge .................................................................................. 9
`Petition Explains How To Modify Chu In View Of Choi
`2010 ........................................................................................... 15
`Patent Owner Is Wrong That Petition Fails To Demonstrate a
`Motivation to Combine Chu and Choi 2010 with Myers .................... 16
`Patent Owner Is Wrong That Choi 2010 Teaches Away
`
`From “Selective Boost” ............................................................ 16
`A POSA Would Have Modified Chu and Choi 2010 To
`Apply Myers’ Power Selection Functionality .......................... 20
`Claim 3 Is Unpatentable ...................................................................... 24
`C.
`IV. AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 26
`V.
`RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 26
`VI.
`JURAT ........................................................................................................... 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`I, Alyssa Apsel, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`1.
`I am the same Alyssa Apsel who submitted a prior declaration in this
`
`matter, which I understand was filed on June 28, 2018. I am currently the Director
`
`of the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering and a professor of electrical
`
`and computer engineering at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Between
`
`September 2016 to June 2018, I was a visiting professor at Imperial College in
`
`London, England, where I worked on low power RF interfaces for implantable
`
`electronics. My background and qualifications remain as stated in paragraphs 2-14
`
`and Appendix A of that declaration, filed as Exhibit 1103 in this case. My
`
`statements in paragraphs 17-19 of my prior declaration regarding my review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558 (“the ’558 patent”) and related materials also remain
`
`unchanged, as do my understandings of the relevant legal principles stated in
`
`paragraphs 20-31.
`
`2.
`
`Since my prior declaration, I have reviewed Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response of October 17, 2018 (“POPR”), the Board’s Decision to
`
`Institute of January 16, 2019, the transcript of my deposition taken on March 6,
`
`2019, the Patent Owner’s Response of April 15, 2019 (“POR”), the Declaration of
`
`Arthur W. Kelley of April 15, 2019 (Ex. 2005), the transcript of Dr. Kelley’s
`
`1
`
`
`
`deposition taken on June 21, 2019. (Ex. 1128), and the related district court
`
`litigation claim construction order (Ex. 1126).
`
`3.
`
`I confirm that everything included in my prior declaration of June 28,
`
`2018, and all of the testimony given during my deposition of March 6, 2019,
`
`remain true to the best of my knowledge.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong
`4.
`Patent Owner contends that the term of claim 6 “[a PMOS] transistor
`
`[having] … a source that receives the boosted supply voltage or the first supply
`
`voltage” should be construed such that “the PMOS transistor must be able to
`
`receive, selectively, either the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage
`
`(referred to herein as a “selective boost”).” (POR, 9.) In other words, under Patent
`
`Owner’s construction, a PMOS transistor that received only the first voltage or
`
`only the boosted voltage would not meet this limitation. I have been informed and
`
`understand that this proposed construction is far from the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “or,” is contrary to the plain meaning, and excludes disclosed
`
`embodiments, and, therefore, it should be rejected.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Contradicts The
`Plain Claim Language
`Claim 6 recites “a P-channel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS)
`
`5.
`
`transistor [having]…a source receiving the boosted supply voltage or the first
`
`2
`
`
`
`supply voltage.” Ex. 1101, 11:41-62. As Dr. Kelley conceded, the term “or” is a
`
`conjunction that identifies two alternatives: this “or” that. (Ex. 1128, 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 one of
`
`those alternative alone. (Id. at 130:19-131:2 (“Q. … If I said I would like 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.
`
`6.
`
`To the contrary, the POR concedes that the common meaning of “or”
`
`in patent claims is to recite alternatives. See, POR, 20 (“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.” I have been
`
`informed and understand that this is exactly how Hon. Dana M. Sabraw construed
`
`“or” in the related district court litigation on the ’558 patent. (Ex. 1126 [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
`
`3
`
`
`
`not require “selective boost”).) Indeed, Dr. Kelley admitted at his deposition that
`
`Patent Owner’s 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.
`
`Ex. 1128, 147:10-151. I have been informed and understand that Judge Sabraw
`
`applied the Phillips standard, which is a narrower standard than the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard. But if “or” covers either alternative alone under
`
`the Phillips standard that Judge Sabraw used, I understand that it is certainly at
`
`least that broad under the broadest reasonable construction rule, which is
`
`applicable in this proceeding. Accordingly, a PMOS transistor that received either
`
`one of the recited alternatives – e.g., the “boosted supply voltage” alone – would
`
`thus meet the claim.
`
`7. Moreover, other claims demonstrate that Patent Owner knew how to
`
`recite a “selective boost” requirement when it wanted – using language different
`
`from claim 6. Dependent claim 7 provides one such example. Claim 7 depends
`
`from independent claim 6. Claim 6 recites “a source receiving the boosted supply
`
`voltage or the first supply voltage.” Claims 6 is therefore met using only one of
`
`
`1 Objections omitted in transcript quotations.
`
`4
`
`
`
`the boosted or first supply voltage. Indeed, as noted above, Judge Sabraw found
`
`that claim 6 does not require “selective boost.” (Ex. 1126, 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
`
`boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage.” If claim 6 already required
`
`“selective boost,” then claim 7 would add nothing. But 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 claim 6) that
`
`adds a requirement for the amplifier to be able to select between “either” the
`
`boosted voltage “or” the first supply voltage. Because claim 6 lacks this “and
`
`either” language, it has no such requirement.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Would Exclude
`Disclosed Embodiments
`I have been informed and understand that Patent Owner’s construction
`
`8.
`
`should also be rejected, because it improperly excludes disclosed embodiments.
`
`9.
`
`Specifically, the ’558 specification (starting at column 8, line 24)
`
`teaches “another design of supporting operation with a lower battery voltage[.]”
`
`(Ex. 1101, 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 battery voltage
`
`5
`
`
`
`(i.e., never based on the “first supply voltage”). (Id. at 8:25-26.) As Dr. Kelley
`
`admitted at his deposition, Patent Owner’s construction would exclude this
`
`disclosed 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. 1128, 134:12-18.) Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction
`
`would exclude this disclosed embodiment, I have been informed and
`
`understand that it should be rejected.
`
`10. Patent Owner’s argument demonstrates that it is improperly
`
`attempting to limit claim 6 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`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. 1101, 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, …”).) I have
`
`been informed and understand that limiting claims solely to one embodiment
`
`disclosed in the specification in not appropriate. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s
`
`attempt to do so here should be rejected.
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Remaining Arguments Have No Merit
`11. Finally, Patent Owner suggests that I 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,” I supposedly “admitted that it makes sense to interpret
`
`‘based on’ as requiring a boosted supply voltage to be an available supply
`
`voltage.” POR, 24.
`
`12. The language from claim 6 that I was addressing 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. 1101, 11:49-51.) This language is not similar to claim 13, which
`
`plainly recites “or.” (Ex. 1101, 11:58-60.) By reciting “or,” claim 6 is clear that
`
`either one of the “boosted supply voltage” or “the first supply voltage” is alone
`
`7
`
`
`
`sufficient to meet the claim’s requirement about the supply voltage received by the
`
`PMOS transistor.
`
`13. Patent Owner’s proposed construction should thus be rejected.
`
`III. GROUNDS
`14. As the Board recognized, Patent Owner does not challenge
`
`Petitioner’s mapping of the limitations to the cited references. DI, 20, 22. Neither
`
`Patent Owner nor Dr. Kelley dispute that all limitations of the asserted claims are
`
`disclosed in the prior art references of Grounds I-II. POR, 19-49. Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 82-
`
`114. Patent Owner relies solely on arguments related to lack of motivation to
`
`combine these references. However, Patent Owner’s arguments ignore explicit
`
`reasons and rationales presented in the Petition and my first Declaration that would
`
`have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) to combine these
`
`references.
`
`15. Thus, if the Board rejects Patent Owner’s lack of motivation-to-
`
`combine arguments (as it should) and confirms its preliminary finding that
`
`“Petitioner provides argument and evidence that supports the combination of Chu
`
`and Choi 2010,” (DI, 21) and “Patent Owner has not shown persuasively that the
`
`differences between Chu/Choi 2010 and Myers undermines their combination,”
`
`(DI, 24), then claims 1-9 should be found unpatentable for the reasons stated in the
`
`Petition and the Decision on Institution.
`
`8
`
`
`
`A. The Petition Demonstrates Motivation to Combine Chu with Choi
`2010
`
`
`The Motivation To Combine Chu and Choi 2010 Is Rooted
`In References Themselves And Common Knowledge
`16. According to Patent Owner, “[a] POSA would not have been
`
`motivated to combine Chu and Choi 2010 because they address different problems
`
`with different solutions that are in tension with each other” (POR, 29) and that
`
`combining Chu and Choi 2010 is based on “hindsight reconstruction” (Id., 30).
`
`Patent Owner alleges that 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).” (Id.,31.) Patent Owner is
`
`mistaken.
`
`17. First, if we are to accept Patent Owner’s argument, this would require
`
`accepting that Chu is not interested in the output signal quality (which relates to
`
`output power degradation) of its supply modulator and that Choi 2010 is not
`
`interested in the power dissipation (which relates to the efficiency) of its supply
`
`modulator. It would require accepting, in other words, that these concerts are
`
`mutually exclusive. This is hardly the case. Even Dr. Kelley admits that engineers
`
`commonly balance concerns of power and efficiency when designing power
`
`management circuits:
`
`Q. And so in designing a power management circuit, you're
`balancing those competing concerns providing enough power
`
`9
`
`
`
`A.
`
`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.
`
`(Ex. 1128, 13:12-20; see also, id., 13:21-14:2.) And this was every bit 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?
`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. 1128, 259:7-18.)
`
`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 the benefits of each. 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 as even the POR concedes. (POR, 29 (“Choi 2010
`
`10
`
`
`
`accepts the trade-off in efficiency in order to achieve a solution to its identified
`
`problem of output power degradation.”).) Accordingly, a POSA would consider
`
`both demands when designing a supply generator, and would not focus on only
`
`one to the exclusion of the other as the Patent Owner argues. See, POR, 31
`
`(“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)”).
`
`19. Second, Patent Owner’s suggestion that Petitioner’s combination “is
`
`not based on any teachings within the references themselves” (POR, 30) is
`
`factually wrong and attempts to distort the record. As an initial matter, both the
`
`Petition and my Declaration cited clear reasons to combine Chu and Choi 2010 that
`
`were articulated within the references themselves. The Petition 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, 44-45 (“These advantages are specifically taught by Choi 2010, and
`
`would have motivated a POSA to modify Chu accordingly.”) see also, Ex. 1103,
`
`¶¶ 93-97.) The Petition then identified explicit disclosures in Choi 2010 (citing
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`over the battery voltage variation.” (See, e.g., Petition, 45; see also, Ex. 1103, ¶
`
`94.)
`
`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.
`
`(Ex. 1128, 105:20-106:4.) Dr. Kelley 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.) Dr. Kelley 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:
`
`12
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`If the battery voltage gets too low, the output signal will
`become distorted, right?
`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, 44-48, and Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 93-97.) In short,
`
`Dr. Kelley conceded the exact motivations to combine that Petitioner described in
`
`the Petition.
`
`21. Moreover, as I have been informed and understand, Patent Owner is
`
`wrong to contend that the reason to combine must come directly from the
`
`combined art itself. I have been informed and understand that the motivation for a
`
`combination may come from the trends in the industry, from the ordinary creativity
`
`of a POSA, or indeed from “common sense” in the art at that time. To that end, the
`
`Petition also explained, using secondary references that inform the knowledge of a
`
`POSA, that these advantages of modifying Chu to include a boost converter were
`
`common and well-known in the prior art. See, e.g., Petition, 45-47; see also, Ex.
`
`1103, ¶¶ 94-97.
`
`22. Even the Patent Owner admits that “efficiency and output
`
`distortion/robustness problems were generally known in the art.” POR, 30. It is
`
`these two problems that the combination of Chu and Choi 2010 addresses, and the
`
`13
`
`
`
`identification of those problems and rationales for combining Chu and Choi 2010
`
`have been well-documented in the Petition, as the Board recognized:
`
`Petitioner provides argument and evidence that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have been motivated to use a boost converter in Choi 2010 to
`
`modify and improve Chu. … Petitioner cites secondary references in support
`
`of the advantages for modifying Chu’s supply modulator to incorporate the
`
`boost converter of Choi 2010. … Petitioner provides argument and evidence
`
`that supports the combination of Chu and Choi 2010 in accordance with the
`
`teachings of these secondary references.
`
`DI, 21.
`
`23. Third, Dr. Kelley conceded the reason that a POSA would modify
`
`Chu to include Choi 2010’s boost converter – namely, that doing so would extend
`
`Chu’s battery life:
`
`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?
`
`A.
`Q.
`
`14
`
`
`
`A.
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 1128, 281:6-282:2. Dr. Kelley further admitted that 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. 1128, 284:6-12. In short, the evidence fully demonstrates motivation for this
`
`combination.
`
`
`
`Petition Explains How To Modify Chu In View Of Choi
`2010
`24. 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, 32.) Patent Owner is mistaken again. The Petition, my first Declaration,
`
`and the prior art references explain how Chu would have been modified to
`
`incorporate the boosted voltage teachings of Choi 2010. For example, the Petition
`
`explains how “to modify Chu to generate its output supply voltage based on the
`
`15
`
`
`
`envelope signal and a boosted supply voltage (rather than Vbattery), using a boost
`
`converter such as the one disclosed in Choi 2010.” (Petition, 42; Ex. 1103, ¶90.)
`
`The Petition also maps (with illustrative 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. Petition,
`
`42, 41-44.
`
`B.
`
`25.
`
`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 claim 6 would be invalid based on the combination of Chu and
`
`Choi 2010 alone. In that case, the Board does not need to examine Patent Owner’s
`
`argument about the alleged lack of motivation to combine Chu, Choi 2010, and
`
`Myers. However, even if the Board accepts Patent Owner’s mistaken construction,
`
`claim 6 would still be invalid based upon the combination of Chu, Choi 2010, and
`
`Myers.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Is Wrong That Choi 2010 Teaches Away
`From “Selective Boost”
`26. 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, 36-37.) I have
`
`been informed and understand that Patent Owner has failed to satisfy the legal
`
`16
`
`
`
`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.”
`
`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. 1106, 1076. Choi2010 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.
`
`28. Second, I have been informed and understand that 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. 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. Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate
`
`17
`
`
`
`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. 1128, 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.”).)
`
`29. Third, Patent Owner’s argument that a POSA would not have been
`
`motivated to operate Choi 2010’s supply modulator selectively by choosing
`
`between a boosted voltage (i.e., a higher voltage) and a non-boosted voltage (i.e., a
`
`lower voltage) contradicts the ’558 patent. In connection with the 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. 1101, 4:7-9 (“The difference
`
`between the battery voltage and the envelope of the RFout signal represents wasted
`
`power that is dissipated by power amplifier 210 instead of delivered to an output
`
`18
`
`
`
`load.”); Ex. 1128, 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. 1106, 1077.) A POSA would thus
`
`have known that operating Choi2010’s amplifier with the boosted voltage at all
`
`times needlessly wastes power, as this evidence corroborates.
`
`30. Accordingly, a POSA would have been motivated to reduce this
`
`waste. For example, Figure 2B of the ’558 patent shows the prior art technique
`
`Average Power Tracking (“APT”). Ex. 1128, 175:3-10. Plot 270 in Figure 2B
`
`shows reducing wasted power by selecting between different voltage supplies for
`
`an amplifier. Specifically, Figure 2B, as reproduced below, shows switching
`
`between a first (lower) supply voltage highlighted blue to a second (boosted)
`
`supply voltage highlighted red:
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1101, Fig. 2B
`
`Ex. 1101, Fig. 2B
`
`19
`
`
`
`As the Patent Owner concedes, selecting between the different voltage supplies in
`
`this way was a known technique to “reduce wasted power.” Ex. 1101, 4:18; Ex.
`
`1128; Ex. 1128, 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.
`
`
`
`A POSA Would Have Modified Chu and Choi 2010 To
`Apply Myers’ Power Selection Functionality
`31. The 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, 41-42.
`
`32. The 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 source based
`
`on the amplitude of the input signal “allows an amplifier to be operated in a more
`
`efficient range,” and suggests that high efficiency is important to battery life. Ex.
`
`1112 at 9:18-21, 1:19-23 (“High dynamic range allows the communications
`
`devices to communicate more reliably over a variety of distances, and high
`
`efficiency allows the devices to operate longer on a single battery.”).
`
`20
`
`
`
`33. The Patent Owner argues that “Myers’ disclosure offers no teaching
`
`or suggestion for how to reconcile the competing objectives of Chu and Choi 2010,
`
`and Petitioner does not rely on Myers to do so.” POR, 42. Patent Owner is again
`
`wrong. As the Petition described, “Myers also discloses that the second power
`
`supply Vdd2 is larger than Vdd1, and that (like the apparatus in the ’558 patent)
`
`the second power source will be used only when needed and the first power source
`
`will be used the rest of the time.” Petition, 72. Accordingly, Myers reconciles
`
`Choi 2010’s objective of minimizing the output power degradation by selecting the
`
`larger power source only when required by the characteristics of the transmitted
`
`signal, and Chu’s objective for efficiency by selecting the lower power source the
`
`rest of the time. In fact, Dr. Kelley admitted that Myers discloses switching
`
`between a larger power source and a lower power source:
`
`Q. There’s discussion at about line 37, "When the amplitude of the
`envelope signal is below Vref, multi‐range modulator 300
`operates in a first mode. When the amplitude of the envelope
`signal is above Vref, multi‐range modulator 300 operates in the
`second mode." Do you see that?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And so Myers does disclose switching between a first mode and
`a second mode based upon the envelope signal with respect to a
`reference, right?
`A. That’s right.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Q. And that means that it would switch both to the high power and
`to the low power, right?
`It could.
`
`A.
`
`Ex. 1128, 270:13-271:5.
`
`34. The Patent Owner also presents various arguments related to the
`
`particular type of the modulator in Myers, and the technological context which
`
`Myers operates. POR, 42-47. These arguments all fa