UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Claims 15-20
`____________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01154
`____________________________________________
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF ALYSSA APSEL, PH.D.
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
`
`Intel v. Qualcomm
`Exhibit 1228
`IPR2018-01154
`
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Claims 15-20
`____________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01154
`____________________________________________
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF ALYSSA APSEL, PH.D.
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
`
`Intel v. Qualcomm
`Exhibit 1228
`IPR2018-01154
`
`
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 2
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong ................................ 2
`1.
`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
`3.
`III. GROUNDS ...................................................................................................... 8
`A.
`Claim 15 is anticipated by Kwak .......................................................... 8
`1.
`Kwak’s feedforward path increases the inductor current ........... 9
`Petitioner Has Not Improperly Combined Two Different Kwak
`Embodiments ....................................................................................... 23
`1.
`Figure 5 Alone Anticipates Claim 15 ....................................... 23
`2.
`Figure 6 Shows A Detailed Implementation of a Figure 5 ....... 26
`Claim 16 Is Unpatentable .................................................................... 27
`Patent Owner Is Wrong That Petition Fails To Demonstrate a
`Motivation to Combine Kwak with Choi 2010 ................................... 28
`1.
`Patent Owner Misrepresents Petitioner’s Argument ................ 29
`IV. AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 30
`V.
`RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 30
`VI.
`JURAT ........................................................................................................... 31
`
`
`C.
`D.
`
`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 1203 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 February 6, 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. 2002), the transcript of Dr. Kelley’s
`
`1
`
`
`
`deposition taken on June 21, 2019 (Ex. 1229), and the related district court
`
`litigation claim construction order (Ex. 1227).
`
`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 19 “the envelope
`
`amplifier operates based on the first supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage”
`
`should be construed such that “the envelope amplifier must be able to operate,
`
`selectively, based on either the first supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage
`
`(referred to herein as a ‘selective boost’).” (POR, 11, 35.) In other words, under
`
`Patent Owner’s construction, an amplifier that received only the first voltage or
`
`only the boosted voltage would not satisfy 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.
`
`1. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Contradicts The Plain
`Claim Language
`Claim 19 recites an “envelope amplifier” that “operates based on the
`
`5.
`
`first supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage.” Ex. 1201, 14:25-27. As Dr.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Kelley conceded at his deposition, the term “or” is a conjunction that identifies two
`
`alternatives: this “or” that. (Ex. 1229, 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 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 alternatives 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, Patent Owner concedes that the common meaning of
`
`“or” in patent claims is to recite alternatives. See, POR, 39 (“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. 1227 [Claim
`
`Constr. Order] at 5-6 (holding the limitation “a source receiving the boosted supply
`
`voltage or the first supply voltage” in claim 6 does not require “selective boost”).)
`
`3
`
`
`
`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. 1229, 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, an envelope amplifier that operates
`
`based on either one of the recited alternatives – e.g., the “boosted supply voltage”
`
`alone – would meet the claim.
`
`7. Moreover, other claims demonstrate that Patent Owner knew how to
`
`recite “selective boost” when it wanted – using language different from claim 19.
`
`Dependent claim 7 provides one such example. Claim 7 depends from
`
`independent claim 6. Much like claim 19, claim 6 recites “a source receiving the
`
`boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage….” Claims 6 is therefore met
`
`
`1 Objections have been omitted in transcript quotations.
`
`4
`
`
`
`using only one of the boosted or first supply voltage. Indeed, as noted above,
`
`Judge Sabraw found that this claim does not require “selective boost.” (Ex. 1227,
`
`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 to claim 6.
`
`But the additional language “and either” of claim 7 has meaning. For that reason,
`
`claim 7 could not be read to require only one of the boosted or first supply voltage.
`
`It is therefore that additional language appearing in claim 7 (which does not appear
`
`in either claims 6 or 19) that adds a requirement for the amplifier to be able to
`
`select between “either” the boosted voltage “or” the first supply voltage. Because
`
`claim 19 (like claim 6) lacks this “and either” language, it has no such requirement.
`
`2. 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. 1201, 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
`
`“boosted supply voltage”), without ever operating based on battery voltage (i.e.,
`
`5
`
`
`
`never based on “first supply voltage”). (Ex. 1201, 8:25-26.) As Dr. Kelley
`
`admitted at his deposition when asked about claim 13, which recites language
`
`similar to claim 19, 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. 1229, 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 19 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:
`
`6
`
`
`
`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
`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. 1201, 1:42-50. (emphasis added).) Patent Owner’s citation to column 8, lines
`
`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.
`
`3. 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, 40), 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, 40.
`
`12. The language from claim 6 that I was asked to address 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. 2003 [Apsel
`
`7
`
`
`
`Transcript], 41:21-23; Ex. 1201, 11:49-51.) This language is not similar to claim
`
`19, which plainly recites “or.”2 (Ex. 1201, claim 19.) By reciting “or,” claim 19 is
`
`clear that either one of the “boosted supply voltage” or “the first supply voltage” is
`
`alone sufficient to satisfy the claim’s requirement.
`
`13. Patent Owner’s proposed construction should thus be rejected.
`
`III. GROUNDS
`A. Claim 15 is anticipated by Kwak
`14. As I explained in my first Declaration, claim 15 is anticipated by
`
`Kwak. Ex. 1203, ¶¶87-109.
`
`15. Patent Owner raises only two arguments for why claim 15 is allegedly
`
`not anticipated. First, Patent Owner argues that Kwak’s feedforward path does not
`
`increase the inductor current. POR, 24-33. Second, Patent Owner argues that
`
`Petitioner improperly combines two different embodiments of Kwak. POR, 17-24.
`
`As I explain below, both arguments are incorrect.
`
`
`2 This language is also different from the relevant part of claim 6 that Judge
`
`Sabraw interpreted, which recites “a source receiving the boosted supply voltage
`
`or the first supply voltage.” (Ex. 1201, 11:58-59.)
`
`8
`
`
`
`1. Kwak’s feedforward path increases the inductor current
`16. Kwak discloses switching amplifiers in Figures 3(a) and 5. Kwak’s
`
`Figure 5 modifies Figure 3(a) by adding a feedforward path. Ex. 1211, 2668-2669.
`
`In both Figures 3(a) and 5, the output current (io) equals the sum of the linear
`
`amplifier current (ia) and the inductor current (id), i.e., io= ia+id. As Patent Owner
`
`has conceded, the use of the feedforward path does not change the output current,
`
`io. POR, 27. Patent Owner has also conceded that it was known in the art that
`
`switchers are more efficient than linear amplifiers, and that it was therefore known
`
`to be desirable to maximize the inductor current and reduce the linear amplifier
`
`current. Ex. 1229, f-186:10.
`
`17. Kwak explains that, in theory “the linear amplifier only delivers the
`
`switching ripple current of the switching amplifier because the switching amplifier
`
`supplies most of the output current through the relation of io=ia+id =(1+β)‧ia.” Ex.
`
`1211, 2666. But as Kwak recognizes, “[i]n reality, however, [] the output current
`
`of the switching amplifier (id) is slower and less than the output current (io) because
`
`of the finite loop gain β. Thus, the linear amplifier must provide some amount of
`
`signal current in addition to the ripple current to compensate for the distortion that
`
`results from the phase lag of the switching stage in the high-frequency region.” Ex.
`
`1211, 2666. Kwak thus states that the linear amplifier does not merely provide
`
`ripple cancelation current–it also provides “some amount of the signal current.”
`
`9
`
`
`
`18. Kwak’s feedforward path shown in Figure 5 has a purpose to reduce
`
`the signal current from the linear amplifier. See, Ex. 1211, 2668 (“Hence, an
`
`auxiliary circuit [feedforward path] is necessary to alleviate the burden of the
`
`linear amplifier.”) Use of the feedforward path reduces the burden on the linear
`
`amplifier (i.e., decreases ia) . According to Kwak’s equation (io=ia+id), the only
`
`way that total current (io) can remain constant when linear amplifier current (ia) is
`
`decreased is if the inductor current (id) increases. Indeed, that is the point of
`
`Kwak’s feedforward path––to reduce the burden on the linear amplifier (i.e.,
`
`reduce ia) by increasing the inductor current (i.e., increase id).
`
`19. This interpretation of Kwak is clear and Patent Owner cannot escape
`
`from it. Consequently, Patent Owner relies on misleading diagrams from Dr.
`
`Kelley, on a flawed visual inspection of Kwak’s Figure 11, and on
`
`mischaracterization of Kwak’s equation 4.
`
`(a) Diagrams in Dr. Kelley’s Declaration Do Not Depict
`Kwak
`In his declaration, Dr. Kelley presents three graphs to support his
`
`20.
`
`argument that decreasing the linear amplifier current (ia) does not increase the
`
`inductor current (id). Ex. 2002, ¶¶77-80 (Examples 1-3); POR, 28-29. As I explain
`
`below, Dr. Kelley relies on improper constraints to generate these graphs –
`
`constraints that are contrary to Kwak’s teachings. In fact, at his deposition, Dr.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Kelley conceded that those graphs do not represent Kwak and instead merely
`
`represent mathematical addition of sine waves.
`
`Q. So the assumption that the amplitude, the peak to peak
`amplitude of Id equals Io, Kwak at Page 2673 bottom of the left
`column says that it is not correct, right?
`A
`Again, my waveforms are an illustration of how to do
`math with sine waves. They are not meant to directly reproduce
`Figure 11 of Kwak.”
`
`Ex. 1229, 232:19-233:5.
`
`21. Because Dr. Kelley admits that his graphs do not represent Kwak, this
`
`argument from Patent Owner is entitled to no weight.
`
`(b) Patent Owner Misinterprets Kwak’s Figure
`22. Patent Owner argues that “a comparison between Figures 11(a) and
`
`11(b) reveals that the feedforward path causes a phase shift in supply current (id)
`
`[], but no increased magnitude [].” POR, 25. Specifically, Patent Owner argues
`
`that even though the addition of the feedforward path in Figure 11(b) results in a
`
`decrease in the linear amplifier current, Figure 11(b) does not show any increase in
`
`the inductor current. See, id., 32. Patent Owner is wrong. In particular, this
`
`argument is based solely on a visual inspection of Figures 11(a) and (b). But those
`
`figures are not properly scaled to show changes in the inductor current, as Dr.
`
`Kelley conceded. Ex. 1229, 204:1-205:3.
`
`11
`
`
`
`23. First, Kwak’s Figure 11 uses different scales to represent the
`
`waveforms of the linear amplifier current, ia, and the inductor current, id. That is,
`
`Figure 11 uses a step-size of 200mA for the linear amplifier current, ia, but uses a
`
`step-size of 500mA for the switcher current, id. These scales are clearly shown in
`
`Kwak’s Figure 11.
`
`Ex. 2011, Fig. 11
`
`
`
`24. Therefore, in Figure 11, a change of one division for the inductor
`
`current, id (i.e., a change from one dashed horizontal line to the next) represents a
`
`change that is 250% greater than a change of one division for the linear amplifier
`
`current, ia. Because of these different step sizes, it is much easier to see small
`
`changes in the linear amplifier current, ia, than it is to see the same small change in
`
`12
`
`
`
`the inductor current, id. Dr. Kelley admitted this at his deposition. Dr. Kelley
`
`admitted that “[c]ertainly at this particular resolution you wouldn’t see a 1 percent
`
`change.” Ex. 1229, 205:1-3. See also, id., 204:1-205:3.
`
`25. Second, any decrease in the linear amplifier current, ia, caused by
`
`Kwak’s feedforward path is balanced by an identical increase in the inductor
`
`current, id. This is so because, as Patent Owner concedes, use of the feedforward
`
`path does not change the output current, io. POR, 27 (“The output current (io)
`
`remains constant”). Therefore, because io=ia+id, and because io remains
`
`unchanged, if ia decreases, id must increase by the identical amount. Because of
`
`the different scales used in Figure 11, the decrease in linear amplifier current, ia, is
`
`more visible than the identical increase in inductor current, id. But Kwak’s
`
`equation confirms that inductor current id must increase.
`
`26. Third, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have
`
`understood that Kwak’s inductor current, id, was much larger than the linear
`
`amplifier current, ia, and indeed this is what Figure 11 shows. This is so because,
`
`as Patent Owner concedes, switchers are more efficient than linear amplifiers and it
`
`was known in the art to maximize the contribution of the switcher. For example,
`
`the inductor may provide 80% or more of the total current, where the linear
`
`amplifier may provide only 20% or less. Therefore, any decrease in the linear
`
`amplifier current, ia, caused by Kwak’s feedforward path will be much easier
`
`13
`
`
`
`visible in Figure 11 than the corresponding increase in the switcher current, id. For
`
`example, using the 80-20% example, suppose the switcher current, id, is 80mA and
`
`the linear amplifier current, ia, is 20mA without the feedforward path. Suppose
`
`further that activating Kwak’s feedforward path decreases the linear amplifier by
`
`2mA. That would be a 10% reduction in linear amplifier current, ia. However, the
`
`corresponding 2mA increase in switcher current, id, would be a 2.5% increase,
`
`which would be harder to perceive than the 10% decrease in ia.
`
`27. Notwithstanding these differences in the scales, close examination of
`
`Figure 11 leads to the opposite of Patent Owner’s conclusion. Patent Owner
`
`provides an annotated Figure 11 (reproduced below) and argues that “[a]s can be
`
`seen by comparing the vertical red lines to the vertical blue lines, the phase lag of
`
`(id) is noticeably reduced in Figure 11(b) with the feedforward path compared to
`
`the phase lag in Figure 11(a) without the feedforward path. Meanwhile, the
`
`magnitude of supply current (id) remains the same in both Figures 11(a) and 11(b),
`
`as denoted by the horizontal blue lines.” POR, 31 (internal citations omitted.)
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`POR, 32 (Fig. 11 as annotated by Patent Owner)
`
`28. Patent Owner misrepresents Kwak’s Figure 11. Patent Owner argues
`
`that because the maximum value of inductor current id (indicated by the blue
`
`horizontal line) is the same in both figures, the magnitude of the inductor current
`
`remains the same. However, as I explain below, while the magnitude of the
`
`highest peaks in the inductor current, id, are the same in Figures 11(a) and (b), the
`
`valleys, or lowest peaks, of id are not. Because the valley of id is lower in Figure
`
`11(b) than it is in Figure 11(a), and because the highest peaks are the same, the
`
`peak-to-peak magnitude of the inductor current, id, is larger in Figure 11(b) than in
`
`Figure 11(a).
`
`15
`
`
`
`29. As Kwak explains, the magnitude of the AC component of the current
`
`is measured by its peak-to-peak value. Ex. 2011, 2673 (“Without the feedforward
`
`path, as shown in Fig. 11(a), the output current of the linear amplifier is
`
`approximately 120mAPP. In contrast, as shown in Fig. 11(b), this value is reduced
`
`to about half when the feedforward path is used.”) The “PP” subscript in Kwak
`
`corresponds to “peak-to-peak.” Patent Owner admits “that the magnitude and
`
`phase of output (Vo) remain constant with and without the feedforward path.”
`
`Accordingly, the minimum value of signal Vo is at the same point in both figures,
`
`as Dr. Kelley testified: “Q. But the minimum values of Vo are the same in 11(a)
`
`and 11(b), right? A. I understand that they’re the same.” Ex. 1229, 207:9-13.
`
`30. This is illustrated in the excerpted detail from Patent Owner’s
`
`illustration below, in which the orange lines identify the valleys of the output
`
`voltage, Vo, and the green lines identify the valleys of the inductor current, id.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`POR, 32 (Fig. 11, excerpted and annotated)
`
`31. According to Patent Owner and Dr. Kelley, the orange horizontal lines
`
`are at the same points in Figures 11(a) and 11(b) (The figures are not perfectly
`
`aligned in the page. Fig. 11(b) is slightly higher). POR, 31; Ex. 2002, ¶87. In the
`
`illustration above, the distance between the orange and green lines is smaller in
`
`Figure 11(b) than in Figure 11(a). That is, the distance between the valleys of the
`
`output voltage, Vo, and the inductor current, id, is bigger in Figure 11(a) than
`
`Figure 11(b). Indeed, Dr. Kelley admitted that the inductor current id valley
`
`(green) is closer to the Vo valley (orange) in Figure 11(b) than it is in 11(a),
`
`thereby conceding that the peak-to-peak distance in Figure 11(b) has increased:
`
`17
`
`
`
`Q. …Is it true, yes or no, that the vertical distance between
`the lowest point of Vo and the lowest point of Id in (a) is greater than
`the vertical distance between the lowest point of Vo and the lowest
`point of Id in (b)?
`A. Yes. That’s what produces the current Ia.
`
`Ex. 1229, 217:12-19.3 This confirms that the peak-to-peak value of inductor
`
`current id has increased in Fig. 11(b), because the valley, or lowest peak, of id
`
`(green line) has decreased, while the highest peak of id (blue line) remained the
`
`same.
`
`32. Accordingly, even Patent Owner’s illustration confirms that Kwak’s
`
`feedforward path increases the inductor current.
`
`(c)
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument That Kwak’s Feedforward
`Path Affects Only The Phase Of The Inductor
`Current Is Wrong
`33. Patent Owner argues that Kwak’s feedforward path changes the phase
`
`of the inductor current, but not its magnitude. POR, 29. As explained below,
`
`Patent Owner is mistaken.
`
`
`3 In redirect, when asked about the peak-to-peak magnitude of inductor current id,
`
`Dr. Kelley contradicted himself by arguing there is no change in the peak-to-peak
`
`magnitude.
`
`18
`
`
`
`34.
`
`In Kwak’s Figures 3(a) and 5, the output current, io, equals the sum of
`
`the linear amplifier current, ia, and the inductor current, id. Ex. 1211, 2668-2669.
`
`Kwak’s equation 4 shows this and further shows that the inductor current, id, has
`
`two components: (1) the sensed current from current sensor AS, “ASꞏiaꞏC,” and (2)
`
`the offset current, “AFꞏvinꞏC,” from the feedforward path AF, where “C=AIꞏAM
`
`ꞏ(1/(ZL+sL)).” Id., 2669. Therefore, the output current depends on the linear
`
`amplifier current (ia), the sensed current (ASꞏia), and the offset current (AFꞏvin).
`
`35. As Patent Owner concedes, use of the feedforward path does not
`
`change the output current, io. POR, 27. As Kwak states explicitly, use of the
`
`feedforward path decreases the linear amplifier current, ia. Ex. 1211, 2668-69.
`
`Decreasing the linear amplifier current, ia, decreases the first component of the
`
`inductor current: ASꞏiaꞏC. Therefore, maintaining the same output current requires
`
`increasing the second component of the inductor current: AFꞏvinꞏC. The increase in
`
`this component offsets the decrease in the linear amplifier current, ia. Said more
`
`simply, because io=ia+id, and because io remains constant, any decrease in ia must
`
`be offset by an increase in id.
`
`36.
`
`In his analysis, Dr. Kelley assumed that the magnitude of the inductor
`
`current, id, remains constant. Ex. 2002, ¶77. But by imposing this constraint, he
`
`assumed the conclusion he was trying to prove.
`
`19
`
`
`
`37.
`
`In any case, Dr. Kelley repeatedly admitted that neither Kwak nor a
`
`POSA would require inductor current to remain constant. See Ex. 1229, 252:3-4
`
`(“A. The switcher is trying to provide most of the current Io by way of Id.”); see
`
`also id., 184:11-185:4; 185:19-186:10; 195:9-15; 196:7-18. For example, Dr.
`
`Kelley testified that a POSA would try to increase the inductor current to the extent
`
`possible:
`
`Q. And a person of ordinary skill would understand that it
`would be desirable from an efficiency standpoint to have the switcher
`produce as much energy as possible, right?
`A.
`I think it would be better phrased the switcher provides
`as much current as possible.
`
`Ex. 1229, 245:15-21.
`
`38. The graphs that Dr. Kelley provided relating to the mathematical
`
`addition of sine waves (Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 77-80) violate this teaching of Kwak.
`
`Specifically, in his sine wave analysis, Dr. Kelley imposed the counter-factual
`
`constraint that the inductor current magnitude must remain constant as the linear
`
`amplifier magnitude decreases. Ex. 2002, ¶ 77. Dr. Kelley admitted at deposition,
`
`however, that Kwak does not impose any such constraint. Ex. 1229, 199:9-17.
`
`Rather, it is Kwak’s output current (io) that remains constant with the introduction
`
`of the feedforward path. Enforcing only this constraint from Kwak’s equation
`
`io=ia+id, when the phase difference between the total current and the inductor
`
`20
`
`
`
`current decreases – e.g., with the introduction of the feedforward path – the
`
`inductor current magnitude will increase.
`
`39.
`
`In response to Dr. Kelley’s diagrams, I provide the graphs below
`
`(Examples 1 and 2) to illustrate this relationship. In Example 1, the phase of
`
`inductor current id lags the total current io phase by 20 degrees. The magnitude of
`
`the inductor current id has a peak-to-peak value of 0.9397x2=1.8974Ipp and the
`
`magnitude of the linear amplifier current ia has a peak-to-peak value of
`
`0.342x2=0.684Ipp.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Example 1
`
`40.
`
`In Example 2, the phase of inductor current id lags the total current io
`
`phase by 10 degrees. The magnitude of the inductor current id has a peak-to-peak
`
`value of 0.9848x2=1.9696Ipp and the magnitude of the linear amplifier current ia
`
`has a peak-to-peak value of 0.1736x2=0.3472Ipp.
`
`Example 2
`
`
`
`When the phase difference is reduced from 20 to 10 degrees, the linear amplifier
`
`peak-to-peak current is reduced by 49.3% (0.684Ipp to 0.3472Ipp), while the
`
`22
`
`
`
`inductor current is increased by 3.8% (1.8974Ipp to 1.9696Ipp). As explained above
`
`in Section III.A.1.b, because the inductor current contribution to the total current is
`
`much higher than the linear current contribution, percentile changes in the linear
`
`amplifier current are more visible. As also explained above, this is compounded in
`
`Fig. 11, because the scale for the id waveform is 2.5 larger than the one used of ia.
`
`For example, in the above example, the 3.8% change in inductor current would be
`
`shown on Figure 11 as a mere 1.5% increase in the peak-to-peak magnitude of
`
`waveform id because of Figure 11’s different scales (i.e., 3.8%/2.5 = 1.5%).
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Improperly Combined Two Different Kwak
`Embodiments
`41. Patent Owner alleges 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.’” POR, 17.
`
`1. Figure 5 Alone Anticipates Claim 15
`In its attempt to create (non-existent) distance between Kwak and
`
`42.
`
`claim 15, Patent Owner misrepresents Petitioner’s and my arguments.
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner is wrong that Petitioner relies on Figure 6 for “the
`
`switcher adding an offset to the input current” limitation. The Petition and my first
`
`Declaration presented arguments that independently show how Kwak’s Figure 5
`
`and the relevant disclosure teach this limitation.
`
`23
`
`
`
`43. For example, the Petition states “[a]s shown in Figure 5 [] Kwak
`
`discloses the internal structure of the supply generator, including the miscellaneous
`
`claim elements that the Examiner found were missing from the prior art during
`
`prosecution (operational amplifier, driver, and PMOS and NMOS transistors).”
`
`Petition, 31. See also, Ex. 1203, ¶¶71-72.
`
`44.
`
`In the grounds section (pp. 42-49), both the Petition and my first
`
`Declaration provide an annotated Figure 5 (p. 42). Referring to the “switcher”
`
`limitation, the Petition states: “Kwak discloses this limitation. Kwak discloses a
`
`switcher highlighted in yellow below:”
`
`Ex. 1211 at 2668 (“Fig. 5. Hybrid switching amplifier with the feedforward path.”)
`
`Petition, 42. See also, Ex. 1203, ¶¶92-93.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`45. The Petition then continues: “The switcher adds an offset to the input
`
`current, which will ultimately generate a larger supply current via the inductor
`
`than without the offset,” (Petition, 43) and points explicitly to the feed forward
`
`path of Fig. 5. See, Id.:
`
`Kwak discloses that the driver AF (highlighted in orange) supplies
`an increase in current—i.e., an offset current—in a “feed forward”
`path. Ex. 1211 at 2668 (“If we add a feedforward path, like the one
`shown in Fig. 5, the input signal can directly control the switching
`amplifier. Such a path is faster than the feedback current path formed
`b
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
