Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 30
`
`
`
` Entered: February 20, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 30
`
`
`
` Entered: February 20, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`In this inter partes review, Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) challenges
`claims 15–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558 B2 (“the ’558 patent,” Ex. 1201)
`which is assigned to Qualcomm Incorporated (“Patent Owner”). Paper 3
`(“Petition” or “Pet.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), addresses issues and
`arguments raised during the trial in these inter partes reviews. For the
`reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 16 of the ’558 patent is
`unpatentable, but has not demonstrated the unpatentability of claims 15 and
`17–20.
`
`A. Procedural History
`Petitioner filed a Petition challenging claims 15–20 of the ’558 patent
`(Pet.), Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8). We instituted
`trial on all grounds of unpatentability. Paper 9 (“Dec. on Inst.”), 19–20.
`During trial, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 16, “PO Resp.”),
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 19, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a
`Sur-reply (Paper 22, “PO Sur-reply”). A combined oral hearing for this
`inter partes review and IPR2019-01240 was held on October 28, 2019, a
`transcript of which appears in the record in each case. Paper 29 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 15–20 of the ’558 patent in
`on the following grounds:
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`15, 17, 18, and 20
`16
`19
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b)0F1
`103(a)
`103(a)
`
`References
`Kwak1F
`2
`Kwak
`
`
`Kwak, Choi 20102F3
`
`Dec. on Inst. 6, 19–20; see Pet. 37.
`In support of these grounds, Petitioner relies on the Declaration of
`Dr. Alyssa Apsel (Ex. 1203), the Reply Declaration of Dr. Alyssa B. Apsel
`(Ex. 1228), and the Deposition of Dr. Arthur Kelley (Ex. 1229) in support
`the Petition. Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Arthur Kelley
`(Ex. 2002) and Depositions of Dr. Alyssa Apsel (Ex. 2003; Ex. 2004).
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`Apple Inc. is identified as an additional real party-in-interest. Pet. 2.
`The parties inform us that the ’558 patent was asserted against Petitioner in
`the litigation Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01375-DMS-
`MDD (S.D. Cal.) and against Apple in a proceeding before the International
`Trade Commission (“ITC”) captioned In the Matter of Certain Mobile
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35
`U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the
`’558 patent issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we
`apply the pre-AIA versions of the statutory bases for unpatentability.
`2 T.W. Kwak, et al., A 2 W CMOS hybrid switching amplitude
`modulator for EDGE polar transmitters, IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-STATE
`CIRCUITS 2666-76 (2007) (Ex. 1211, “Kwak”).
`3 Jinsung Choi, et al., Envelope Tracking Power Amplifier Robust to
`Battery Depletion,” Microwave Symposium Digest (MTT), 2010
`IEEE MTT-S INTERNATIONAL 1074–1077 (2010) (Ex. 1206, “Choi 2010”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing Components
`Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1065. Pet. 2; Paper 5, 2.
`
`D. The ’558 Patent and Illustrative Claim
`The ’558 patent is titled “Low-Voltage Power-Efficient Envelope
`Tracker” and discloses “[t]echniques for efficiently generating a power
`supply for a power amplifier” used in communication system transmitters.
`Ex. 1201, 1:30–31, code (54). The ’558 patent discloses that a
`transmitter typically includes a power amplifier (PA) to provide
`high transmit power for the output RF signal. The power
`amplifier should be able to provide high output power and have
`high power-added efficiency (PAE). Furthermore, the power
`amplifier may be required to have good performance and high
`PAE even with a low battery voltage.
`Id. at 1:21–26. The ’558 patent also discloses that the power amplifier
`apparatus may include: (1) in one embodiment, an envelope amplifier and a
`boost converter; (2) in a second embodiment a switcher, an envelope
`amplifier, and a power amplifier; or (3) in a third embodiment, a switcher
`that may sense an input current and generate a switching signal to charge
`and discharge an inductor providing a supply current. Id. at 1:31–34, 1:51–
`52, 1:66–2:2.
`Figure 3, below, shows an exemplary switcher and envelope
`amplifier. Ex. 1201, 4:39–42.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 shows switcher 160a and envelope amplifier 170a, which, in turn,
`includes operational amplifier (op-amp) 310 that receives the envelope
`signal. Id. at 4:41–63. Driver 312 has output (R1) coupled to the gate of P-
`channel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS) transistor 314 and a second
`output (R2) coupled N-channel MOS (NMOS) transistor 316. Id. PMOS
`transistor 318 in envelope amplifier 170a is connected to receive C1 control
`signal via Vboost voltage from Boost Converter 180. Id. PMOS transistor
`320 in envelope amplifier 170 receives a C2 control signal and Vbat voltage.
`Id.
`
`Within switcher 160a, current sense amplifier 330 has its input
`coupled to current sensor 164 and its output coupled to an input of switcher
`driver 332. Ex. 1201, 4:64–66. Vbat voltage of switcher 160a provides
`current to power amplifier 130 via inductor 162 when the switcher is ON,
`and inductor 120 provides stored energy to power amplifier 130 during the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`OFF state of the switcher circuit. Id. at 5:14–30. In the ON state, the
`switcher is joined with the current from the envelope amplifier 170a (Ienv)
`to provide a combined current (Ipa) to PA 130. See id. at 3:21–27.
`The ’558 patent also discloses another embodiment for the switcher
`circuit of Figure 3—specifically a switcher that uses offset current to lower
`the Isen current from the current sensor, keeping the switcher in the ON state
`for a longer time and producing a larger Iind current provided to power
`amplifier 130. Id. at 1:5–48, Fig. 5.
`Claim 15 is independent and claims 16–20 are dependent. Claim 15 is
`illustrative and reproduced below (Ex. 1201, 13:19–34).
`15. An apparatus comprising:
`an inductor operative to receive a switching signal
`and provide a supply current; and
`a switcher operative to sense an input current and
`generate the switching signal to charge and discharge the
`inductor to provide the supply current, the switcher adding
`an offset to the input current to generate a larger supply
`current via the inductor than without the offset, wherein
`the switcher comprises
`a summer operative to sum the input current and an
`offset current and provide a summed current,
`a current sense amplifier operative to receive the
`summed current and provide a sensed signal, and
`a driver operative to receive the sensed signal and
`provide at least one control signal used to generate the
`switching signal for the inductor.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The parties do not materially dispute the level of ordinary skill in the
`art. See PO Resp. 11; Pet. 38–39. Petitioner argues a person of ordinary
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`skill in the art related to the ’558 patent at the time of filing, would have a
`Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or
`computer science, and would also have at least two years of relevant
`experience, or a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields and four years of
`relevant experience, where relevant experience “refers to experience with
`mobile device architecture as well as transmission and power circuitry for
`radio frequency devices.” Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1201, code (57), 1:7–9, 30–
`31; Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 84–85).
`Our Institution Decision adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.
`Dec. on Inst. 11. Patent Owner does not dispute this issue. PO Resp. 11.
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary
`skill in the art and we find the work experience is commensurate with the
`level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`(Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, the ’558 patent requires a degree of knowledge that
`is specific to mobile device architecture as well as transmission and power
`circuitry for radio frequency devices. See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1201, Abstract,
`1:7–9, 30–31.
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review for a petition filed before November 13,
`2018, a claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); see Changes to the Claim Construction
`Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); effective November 13, 2018). The Petition was
`accorded a filing date of June 28, 2018, and therefore, the broadest
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`reasonable interpretation standard for claim interpretation applies. See
`Paper 5 (Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition).
`In applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms generally
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In
`re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This
`presumption may be rebutted when a patentee, acting as a lexicographer, sets
`forth an alternate definition of a term in the specification with reasonable
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994).
`1. “current sense amplifier” (claim 15)
`Petitioner offers a claim construction for “current sense amplifier”
`(claim 15) to mean an “amplifier that produces a voltage from a current,”
`which is based on the ALJ’s construction in the parallel ITC proceeding.
`Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1223, 11–12). Petitioner argues that the ITC
`construction is consistent with the ’558 patent specification and the
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 35–36 (Ex. 1201,
`4:64–66, 5:7–10, 5:18–20). Patent Owner argues that this term does not
`require construction, but does not contest Petitioner’s contention or our
`adoption of this construction in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 10.
`Based on the full record and for the reasons given by the ALJ in the
`ITC proceeding (Ex. 1223, 11–12), we adopt the construction of “current
`sense amplifier” to mean an “amplifier that produces a voltage from a
`current.”
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`2. “envelope signal” (claim 15)
`Petitioner offers a claim construction for “envelope signal” (claim 15)
`to mean a “signal indicative of the upper bound of the output RF signal,”
`which is the ALJ’s construction in the ITC proceeding. Pet. 36; Ex. 1223,
`13–14. Patent Owner argues that this term does not require construction, but
`does not contest Petitioner’s contention or our adoption of this construction
`in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 10.
`Based on the full record and for the reasons given by the ALJ (Ex.
`1223, 13–14), we adopt the ITC construction for “envelope signal” to mean
`a “signal indicative of the upper bound of the output RF signal.”
`3. “wherein the envelope amplifier operates based on the first supply
`voltage or the boosted supply voltage” (claim 19)
`Claim 19 recites “a boost converter operative to receive the first
`supply voltage and provide a boosted supply voltage having a higher voltage
`than the first supply voltage, wherein the envelope amplifier operates based
`on the first supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage.” Patent Owner
`argues that, “the only reasonable interpretation of claim 19, properly read
`within the context of the specification, is that the envelope amplifier must be
`able to operate, selectively, based on either the first supply voltage or the
`boosted supply voltage.” PO Resp. 35–36 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 48–56).
`Our combined Final Decision in IPR2018-01152 and IPR2018-01153
`construed terms in claims 6, 8, and 13 of the ’558 patent that are closely
`related to the disputed limitation of claim 19. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm
`Inc., IPR2018-01152, Paper 30 at 12–21 (PTAB Jan 15, 2020) (“1152 Final
`Dec.”). Indeed, Patent Owner asserts that the same arguments supporting
`“selective boost” terms of claims 6, 8, and 13, are applicable to the envelope
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`amplifier operating, selectively, on the first supply voltage or boosted
`voltage of claim 19. Compare 1152 Final Dec. 12–21 with PO Resp. 35–41
`(arguing that ’558 specification and expert testimony to support that claim
`19 requires a selective voltage supply); PO Sur-reply 15–22. Petitioner’s
`reply arguments also rely on the same evidence and argument presented in
`IPR2018-01152 and IPR2018-01153 with respect to claims 6, 8, and 13.
`Compare 1152 Final Dec. 12–21 with Pet. Reply 2–8. In IPR2018-01152
`and IPR2018-01153, we determined that “that the specification and context
`of the claims support the broadest reasonable interpretation that claims 6, 8,
`and 13 require that both a first supply voltage and second supply voltage be
`available at the amplifier (claim 13) and PMOS transistor source (claims 6
`and 8).” 1152 Final Dec. 21. In sum, we agreed with Patent Owner’s
`arguments based on the context of the entire ’558 patent disclosure that
`claims 6, 8, and 13 recite limitations requiring selective voltages. 1152 Final
`Dec. 12–21.
`As we discussed in IPR2018-01152 and IPR2018-01153, and
`incorporate herein (1152 Final Dec. 12–21), the broadest reasonable
`interpretation is what would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`in the context of the entire disclosure. See Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1257.
`The ’558 specification and the context of claims 6, 8, and 13 and the related
`language of claim 19 support that the amplifier must be able to receive both
`the boosted supply voltage and the first supply voltage (a selective boost) as
`recited in the claims. PO Resp. 35–38; Ex. 1201, 1:42–50, 5:31–49, 8:55–
`62, 8:62–9:17, 9:21–36, 10:19–29, Figs. 3 and 5. In light of these findings,
`we do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments that the plain language of the
`claim 19 identifies two alternatives that need not both be present. Pet. Reply
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`3–4. We credit and find persuasive Patent Owner’s evidence that the ’558
`specification, which provides context for the interpretation of an ordinarily
`skilled artisan, refers to the capability of receiving or operating on both
`voltages at the source (envelope amplifier). See PO Resp. 35–38.
`Petitioner’s arguments assert both that Patent Owner improperly limits
`the construction to one disclosed embodiment and that the Patent Owner’s
`construction improperly excludes a disclosed embodiment. Pet Reply 6–8.
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s
`construction should be rejected because it excludes an embodiment. See Pet.
`Reply 6 (citing EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338,
`1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., 257 F.3d
`1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The cases Petitioner cites refer to
`constructions that read out preferred embodiments. See EPOS Techs., 766
`F.3d at 1347; Dow Chem. Co., 257 F.3d, at 1378. Petitioner provides no
`persuasive evidence that the embodiment they identify as being excluded is
`the preferred embodiment of the ’558 patent. Further, Petitioner cites no
`support that every claim must be construed to cover all embodiments. See
`Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`The Federal Circuit has stated that the broadest reasonable
`construction is not required to cover the most embodiments in a patent
`specification, but “must be reasonable in light of the claims and
`specification. The fact that one construction may cover more embodiments
`than another does not categorically render that construction reasonable.”
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747,
`755 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`exclusion of a single embodiment renders Patent Owner’s claim construction
`improper.
`We are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that in related
`proceedings before the United States District Court for the Southern District
`of California, the court issued a claim construction for a related term in
`claim 7 of the ’558 patent that construed “or” in the manner Petitioner
`proposes. Pet. Reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1227, 5–6). The district court was
`faced with assessing whether “based on” in claim 7 of the ’558 patent was
`indefinite or should be construed according to its plain meaning. Ex. 1227,
`5. The court found that because dependent claim 7 acted to expand the
`scope of a dependent claim to include another possible combination not
`claimed in the claim from which it depended, the term “based on” in claim 7
`was indefinite. Id. at 6. The court’s discussion of indefiniteness does not
`construe the term “or” as recited in claim 19. We do not agree with
`Petitioner that the court addressed the scope of claim 19 or construed the
`word “or” the claim by implication. Id. at 5–6. Petitioner’s reliance on the
`district court’s discussion is unpersuasive.
`We are also not persuaded by the extrinsic cross-examination
`testimony. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner cites compelling testimony
`regarding the interpretation of claim 19 or related limitations in claims 6, 8,
`and 13. See PO Resp. 40; Pet. Reply 8–9; PO Sur-reply 19–22.
`Based on the full record, we find that claim 19, in the context of the
`claims 6, 8, and 13 (1152 Final Dec. 20–21), and the ’558 specification (Ex.
`1201, 1:42–50, 5:31–49; 8:55–62), requires that the envelope amplifier be
`capable of operating, selectively, based on the first supply voltage or the
`boosted supply voltage. PO Resp. 40–41. We apply this interpretation in
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`our analysis of the teachings of the prior art below. See Section II.F.2.
`
`C. Principles of Law
`To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
`as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net
`MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in
`the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e.,
`identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334
`(Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any secondary
`considerations, if in evidence.3F
`4 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966).
`
`
`4 Patent Owner does not present any objective evidence of nonobviousness
`(i.e., secondary considerations) as to any of the challenged claims.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`D. Anticipation by Kwak
`1. Overview of Kwak (Ex. 1211)
`Kwak is a 2007 paper that discloses a “hybrid switching amplifier”
`that comprises a linear amplifier and a switching amplifier. Ex. 1211, 2666
`(“To achieve both high efficiency and high speed, [the proposed hybrid
`switching amplifier] consists of a wideband buffered linear amplifier
`[envelope amplifier] as a voltage source and a PWM [pulsewidth
`modulation] switching amplifier [switcher] with a 2 MHz switching
`frequency as a dependent current source.”). Figure 5 of Kwak, shown below
`as annotated by Petitioner (Pet. 29–30), shows the hybrid switching
`amplifier disclosed in Kwak. Ex. 1211, Fig. 5.
`
`Figure 5 of Kwak shows the hybrid supply generator with a feedforward
`path so the input signal can directly control the switching amplifier.
`Ex. 1211, 2668. Kwak teaches that “[a] feedforward path, a PWM control,
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`and a third-order ripple filter are used to reduce the current burden of the
`linear amplifier.” Id. at Abstract. Kwak concludes by proposing “a CMOS
`hybrid switching amplitude modulator” that “is based on a hybrid switching
`technique [that] achieves both high efficiency and high speed.” Id. at 2676.
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner argues that claims 15, 17, 18, and 20 are anticipated by
`Kwak. Pet. 38–59 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 87–129).
`Petitioner provides argument and evidence, citing Figures 5 and 6 of
`Kwak, to support its contention that Kwak discloses the inductor limitation
`of claim 15 (Pet. 38–41, 44–45) and the switcher operative to sense an input
`current and generate the switching signal to charge and discharge the
`inductor limitation of claim 15 (id. at 41–49). Petitioner provides argument
`and evidence that Kwak discloses the “switcher adding an offset to the input
`current to generate a larger supply current via the inductor than without the
`offset” limitation explaining that Kwak discloses these limitation in
`operation. Id. at 47–49. Finally, Petitioner asserts that Kwak discloses the
`switcher comprises a summer circuit, a current sense amplifier that receives
`the summed current, and “a driver operative to receive the sensed signal and
`provide [a] control signal to generate the inductor switching signal.” Id. at
`49–51.
`Petitioner provides similar arguments and evidence for dependent
`claims 17, 18, and 20, asserting that Kwak discloses the additional
`limitations of these dependent claims. Id. at 51–59.
`Petitioner annotates Kwak’s Figure 5 showing the switcher
`highlighted in yellow below in support of its arguments. Pet. 42.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`
`Annotated Figure 5 above shows the input current from driver AS (current
`sense gain shown in green triangle) and the output of switching signal id
`(circled in green). Pet. 42–43. Petitioner observes that “[t]he switcher adds
`an offset to the input current, which will ultimately generate a larger supply
`current via the inductor than without the offset. Kwak discloses that the
`driver AF (highlighted in orange) supplies an increase in current—i.e., an
`offset current—in a ‘feed forward’ path.” Pet 43 (citing Ex. 1211, 2668).
`In discussing the offset current, Petitioner provides parallel citations
`to the gain of the feedforward path from both Figure 5 and Figure 6 in Kwak
`(Ex. 1211, 2668–2669), describing Figure 6 as a “detailed implementation of
`the type of circuit shown in Figure 5” that “shows the same features (with
`similar components in [the figures] highlighted using the same colors as in
`[annotated] Figure 5).” Pet. 44.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`Petitioner’s annotated Figure 6 is provided below.
`
`
`Pet. 44. Annotated Figure 6 (Ex. 1211, 2669) shown above depicts the
`detailed circuit of the hybrid switching amplifier with CMOS design and a
`different summing circuit (outlined in brown) and integrator (outlined in red)
`than the one depicted in Figure 5 above. With respect to Figure 6, Petitioner
`expressly identifies the current from the feedforward path (blue arrow)
`added to an input current (dark green arrow) that is not specifically
`identified or shown in Figure 5. Pet. 45. Petitioner’s argument then turns
`back to Figure 5 to address “how the added offset current increases the
`supply current provided via the inductor, as required by claim 15.” Pet. 45–
`49 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 97–103).
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s anticipation analysis
`improperly combines different embodiments from Kwak to disclose the
`limitations of claim 15. PO Resp. 17–24. Specifically, Patent Owner
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`contends that Petitioner’s bare bones allegations fail to provide any
`information on how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`that Kwak’s separate embodiments of Figures 5 and 6 anticipate claim 15.
`Id. Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner relies on the hybrid switching
`amplifier shown in Figure 5 of Kwak as allegedly disclosing the bulk of this
`claim element, but then relies on Kwak’s Figure 6 for the claim requirement
`of ‘the switcher adding an offset to the input current.’” PO Resp. 17
`(quoting Pet. 42–49); see Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052,
`1069 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “anticipation is not proven by ‘multiple,
`distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the
`claimed invention’” (citations omitted)).
`Petitioner denies that it relies on multiple embodiments, arguing
`instead that the Petition “presents” arguments that Figure 5 alone
`independently discloses the limitation for “the switcher adding an offset to
`the input current.” Pet. Reply 20–22 (Ex. 1228 ¶¶ 42–44, 48); Pet. 31, 43,
`45. Petitioner cites the references to Figure 5 showing the switcher adds
`offset to the input current. Pet. Reply 21–22 (citing Pet. 43; Ex. 1211,
`2668). These citations, however, ignore the express discussion of Figure 6
`(Pet. 44–45), which Petitioner directly cites to discuss and identify the
`feedforward and input currents annotated in Figure 6.
`Patent Owner argues that the reliance solely on Figure 5 is new and
`untimely (see PO Sur-reply 13), and we agree. We are not persuaded that
`the Petition sufficiently asserts that Figure 5 alone discloses the offset
`current limitation. The Petition discusses and annotates Figure 6 to illustrate
`the current summing properties recited in the claim limitation and discusses
`them in conjunction with Figure 5. We note that the Petition also provides
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`parallel citations to Kwak’s Figures 3(a), 4, and 6 to illustrate the switcher
`circuits. See Pet. 42–43 (string cite supporting Figure 5). We do not agree
`that Petitioner asserted in the Petition that Figure 5 alone teaches the current-
`based limitations of claim 15.
`In the alternative, Petitioner provides testimony and argument that
`Figure 6 of Kwak is a merely a detailed implementation of Kwak’s Figure 5,
`using the same features and components but replaces the summing and
`integrator circuits and changes the injection node of the feedforward signal
`into the integrator. Pet Reply 23; Ex. 1203 ¶ 96; Ex. 1228 ¶¶ 49–50;
`Ex. 1211, 2668. Thus, Petitioner argues Kwak is just a detailed
`implementation of the summing circuit and integrator shown in Figure 5,
`which forms the basis for Petitioner’s argument. Pet. Reply 23; Ex. 1228
`¶ 50.
`
`On the full record, Petitioner has not provided sufficient or persuasive
`argument and evidence that Figure 6 is merely a more detailed
`implementation of Figure 5 such that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would envision them as a single disclosure. Figure 6 specifically discusses a
`summing circuit operating on input current and offset current that differs
`from the voltage circuit signals shown in Figure 5. PO Sur-reply 13–14.
`We also note that feedforward node in Figure 6 differs from that shown in
`Figure 5. Indeed, Kwak expressly notes the differences and advantages
`between Figures 4 and 5 (showing summation of voltage signals) and Figure
`6, which shows voltage signals converted into current signals before
`summation, stating that:
`In CMOS design, although three voltage signals can be added
`and then integrated as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, the simultaneous
`summation and integration of the signals at the node Vc, after the
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`conversion of the three voltage signals into current ones, is
`advantageous, that is, the sensed output current of the linear
`amplifier, the feedforward current, and the high-frequency
`current through the ripple filter are added together and integrated
`at the node with the inverted polarity of the last one
`Ex. 1211, 2669. Kwak’s disclosure notes differences between the voltage
`signals of Figures 4 and 5 and the current conversion feedforward teachings
`shown in Figure 6. See id.
`On the full record, Petitioner has failed to persuasively establish that
`“a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’
`the claimed arrangement or combination of elements” of claim 15 based on
`Kwak’s disclosures. See Microsoft Corp., 878 F.3d at 1068. Petitioner’s
`parallel citations to Figures 5 and 6 and joint discussion of the current
`summing and integration of Figure 6 and the voltage summing of Figures 5
`(see Pet. 42–49), do not establish that Kwak shows the elements of the claim
`in an embodiment as arranged in the claims. Microsoft Corp., 878 F.3d at
`1068–1069. Petitioner’s arguments and testimony evidence (Ex. 1203 ¶ 96;
`Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 94–96)) fail to address sufficiently the
`differences between Kwak’s Figures 5 and 6.
`For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Kwak anticipates independent claim 15
`or dependent claims 17, 18, and 20.
`
`E. Obviousness based on Kwak
`Petitioner argues that claim 16, which depends from independent
`claim 15,4F
`5 would have been obvious over Kwak (Pet. 59–61). Petitioner
`
`
`5 Petitioner’s grounds challenge dependent claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`but do not advance a ground challenging independent claim 15 on
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`relies on the alleged anticipatory disclosures identified for claim 15 of Kwak
`(Pet. 38–51) and argues that it would have been obvious for Kwak to teach
`the claim 16 limitation (Pet. 59–61) which recites: “The apparatus of claim
`15, wherein the switcher operates based on a first supply voltage, and
`wherein the offset is determined based on the first supply voltage.”
`Petitioner provides evidence and argument that Kwak at least suggests
`the apparatus of claim 15, specifically, “an inductor operative to receive a
`switching signal and provide a supply current” (Pet. 38–41); “a switcher
`operative to sense an input current and generate the switching signal to
`charge and discharge the inductor to provide the supply current” where “the
`switcher adding an offset to the input current to generate a larger supply
`current via the inductor than without the offset” (id. at 42–49); a summer,
`current sense amplifier, and driver (id. at 49–51).
`Petitioner notes that Figure 5 shows the offset current increases the
`supply current provided via the inductor, and “shows that the total output
`current (iO) from the hybrid supply generator is the sum of the currents from
`the envelope amplifier (ia) and the switcher (i)—that is, iO = ia+ id. Pet. 48.
`Furthermore, Petitioner cites Kwak’s equation (4) as another expression for
`the total output current (iO):
`
`
`Ex. 1211, 2669; Pet. 47. Petitioner argues that the current from the switcher
`(id) shown in Figure 5 is proportional to the offset current AF, such that as
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
