`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01154
`Patent 8,698,558
`______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I. 
`II. 
`
`C. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`INDEPENDENT CLAIM 15 IS NOT ANTICIPATED BY KWAK ............. 3 
`A.  Kwak Does Not Explicitly Disclose Any Increase In Supply Current
`(Id) .......................................................................................................... 4 
`B.  Kwak’s Equations Fail To Establish That The Magnitude Of Supply
`Current (Id) Must Increase As A Result Of A Decrease In The
`Magnitude of (Ia) ................................................................................... 8 
`Petitioner Improperly Combines Two Different Embodiments From
`Kwak .................................................................................................... 12 
`III.  CLAIM 19 IS NOT OBVIOUS OVER KWAK IN VIEW OF CHOI 2010 15 
`A. 
`Claim 19 Requires A Selective Boost ................................................. 15 
`1. 
`Petitioner’s Reliance on Judge Sabraw’s Order Is Misguided . 15 
`2. 
`The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Cannot Be So Broad
`As To Include Contradicting Embodiments ............................. 17 
`Dr. Apsel’s Testimony Supports Patent Owner’s
`Construction .............................................................................. 19 
`Petitioner Has Failed To Provide A Sufficient Motivation To
`Combine Kwak And Choi 2010 .......................................................... 22 
`IV.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 24 
`
`
`3. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner’s Reply introduces unpersuasive and belated arguments that cannot
`
`salvage the shortcomings of the Petition. Petitioner cites to no explicit teachings in
`
`Kwak that disclose the claim 15 limitation of a “switcher adding an offset to the
`
`input current to generate a larger supply current via the inductor than without the
`
`offset.” Instead, Petitioner argues, for the first time, that Kwak’s Figure 11 somehow
`
`proves that Kwak discloses this limitation. But Figure 11 does no such thing, and in
`
`fact demonstrates that Kwak’s supply current (id) does not increase as a result of its
`
`feedforward path.
`
`Aside from the strained viewing of Figure 11, Petitioner identifies no other
`
`disclosure in Kwak that explicitly teaches the above-cited claim 15 limitation.
`
`Instead, Petitioner doubles down on its insistence that the equation io=ia+id means
`
`that (id) must increase when (io) is constant and (ia) decreases. Because Kwak does
`
`not explicitly disclose an increase in (id), Petitioner argues that Kwak’s equation
`
`means that it must disclose an increase in (id). Petitioner is making an inherency
`
`argument without the courtesy of characterizing it as such. But Petitioner’s
`
`conclusion that (id) must increase based on this equation does not hold true when
`
`working with AC signals. As Petitioner’s expert admitted, the AC version of the
`
`equation has six variables, not three (three for magnitude and three for phase). In
`
`the correct six-variable equation, the magnitude of (id) may increase, decrease, or
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`remain the same. Kwak does not provide a POSA with enough information to
`
`determine whether (id) increases. Therefore, Petitioner cannot show, as it must for
`
`inherency, that the magnitude of (id) must increase as a result of the magnitude of (ia)
`
`decreasing.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner argues for the first time in its Reply that claim 15 is
`
`anticipated based only on the embodiment of Figure 5 in Kwak, and not Figure 5
`
`combined with the embodiment of Figure 6. This argument is improperly raised in
`
`Petitioner’s reply and should not be given any weight. But even if the Board were
`
`to consider Petitioner’s belated argument, Figure 5 alone fails to disclose the claim
`
`15 limitation “adding an offset to the input current.”
`
`Finally, Petitioner’s arguments with respect to the selective boost limitation
`
`in claim 19 are unpersuasive. To support its flawed claim construction for the claim
`
`19 limitation of “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,” Petitioner mischaracterizes the opinion of District
`
`Court Judge Sabraw, twists the testimony of its own expert, Dr. Apsel, and ignores
`
`fundamental Federal Circuit case law. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claim 19 limitation, when properly read in the context of the respective claim as a
`
`whole, requires a selective boost. Because Petitioner’s argument with respect to
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`claim 19 is based only on Petitioner’s incorrect proposed construction, the Board
`
`should confirm the patentability of claim 19 for at least this independent reason.
`
`For at least these reasons, the Board should confirm the patentability of claims
`
`15-20 of the ’558 Patent.
`
`II.
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIM 15 IS NOT ANTICIPATED BY KWAK
`Petitioner identifies no teachings in Kwak that explicitly disclose the claim 15
`
`limitation of a “switcher adding an offset to the input current to generate a larger
`
`supply current via the inductor than without the offset.” Petitioner’s Reply, for the
`
`first time, alleges that Figure 11 illustrates an increase in supply current (id) as a
`
`result of the feedforward path. But Petitioner’s blown-up and annotated version of
`
`Figure 11 does not establish that it is more likely than not that the magnitude of
`
`supply current (id) increased.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s remaining evidence depends on mathematical errors to reach a
`
`conclusion that Kwak must disclose an increase in supply current (id) when the linear
`
`amplifier current (ia) is decreased. But Petitioner’s misleading mathematical
`
`argument is no more than an argument that Kwak inherently discloses an increase in
`
`supply current (id). Inherency requires that Kwak necessarily teaches an increase in
`
`the magnitude of supply current (id), but as explained below, there are infinite
`
`possibilities for the magnitude of (id) as a result of a decrease in the magnitude of
`
`(ia). Accordingly, Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`that Kwak explicitly or inherently discloses an increase in the magnitude of supply
`
`current (id).
`
`
`
`Furthermore, the Board should refuse to entertain Petitioner’s attempts to now
`
`argue, for the first time in its Reply, that the embodiment in Figure 5 alone
`
`anticipates claim 15. But even if the Board were to consider this rewriting of the
`
`Petition, Figure 5 fails to disclose “adding an offset to the input current” because the
`
`embodiment of Figure 5 relates only to the summation of voltages, not currents.
`
`
`
`For at least these reasons, the Board should dismiss Ground I and confirm the
`
`patentability of claims 15, 17, 18, and 20 over Kwak.
`
`A. Kwak Does Not Explicitly Disclose Any Increase In Supply
`Current (Id)
`Kwak fails to expressly disclose the claim 15 limitation “the switcher adding
`
`an offset to the input current to generate a larger supply current via the inductor
`
`than without the offset.” As Patent Owner explained in its Patent Owner’s Response
`
`(“POR”), the oscilloscope plots provided in Kwak’s Figure 11 conclusively show
`
`that its feedforward path does not cause any change in the magnitude of the supply
`
`current (id) through the inductor. Petitioner’s attempts to argue otherwise are both
`
`incorrect and misleading.
`
`As demonstrated in the POR and supporting declaration of Dr. Kelley, a
`
`comparison of Figures 11(a) and (b) demonstrates that Kwak fails to disclose the
`
`above-quoted claim 15 limitation. Petitioner made no mention of Figure 11 in its
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition, but now tries to explain it away by relying on misleading comparisons in a
`
`blown-up version of the Figure and by mischaracterizing the testimony of Patent
`
`Owner’s expert.
`
`When the supply current waveform (id) from Figure 11(a) (without the
`
`feedforward path) is overlaid on top of the supply current waveform (id) from Figure
`
`11(b) (with a feedforward path), there can be no credible dispute that the magnitude
`
`of the supply current (id) is unchanged. In the figure below, two identical sets of
`
`Figs. 11(a) and (b) were placed side by side with a 50% transparency, and were then
`
`slid over one another such that the middle plot depicts an overlay of Figure 11(a)
`
`and Figure 11(b). The overlay illustrates that when comparing the waveforms for
`
`supply current (id) before and after adding the feedforward path, there is no
`
`discernible change in the magnitude of supply current (id).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`nuu n.» m-
`35'.‘
`
`
` .n- at ch: I Luv
`
`IWI—uwtml
`(a)
`
`Whfl-jfllfiw
`(b)
`
`
`
`Ilium A Ch] I Luv
`
`.‘u- at cm I Luv
`‘ DWI-15mm]
`(a)
`
`FHLII-Jsulz
`(b)
`
`mm. :rhne- nu-
`
`
`
`
`
`IJI V
`. m 5 ca: .r u"
`.
`ll h C111 1
`II III!!!
`114 “um L'
`
`
`
`OWL-timing
`u-vgusmm
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Unlike the above overlay of Figures 11(a) and (b), which directly compares
`
`unedited copies of the supply current (id), Petitioner relies on a misleading
`
`comparison between lines that they have added to two drastically blown-up versions
`
`of the figures. Even assuming that the Petitioner’s illustrations are accurate
`
`enlargements of Figures 11(a) and (b) at equal scale – which Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated – any apparent difference between the waveform peaks in the blown-
`
`up versions is just as likely the result of an illusion created by the phase shift and
`
`Petitioner’s selective line placement.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s belated analysis of Figure 11 relies solely on a
`
`misleading comparison between the positioning of two waveforms within the
`
`oscilloscope plots, instead of a comparison between the supply current waveforms
`
`(id) with and without a feedforward path. As demonstrated by the above overlay of
`
`these two supply current waveforms (id), there can be no reasonable dispute that the
`
`waveform magnitudes are identical. At best for Petitioner, the waveforms in Figures
`
`11(a) and (b) are inconclusive because of the resolution of the plots. When evidence
`
`is inconclusive, a petitioner cannot meet its burden of establishing by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that a claim element is met.
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons above, Petitioner fails to meet its burden of
`
`proving that Kwak expressly discloses each limitation of independent claim 15.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`B. Kwak’s Equations Fail To Establish That The Magnitude Of
`Supply Current (Id) Must Increase As A Result Of A Decrease In
`The Magnitude Of (Ia)
`Petitioner cannot reasonably dispute that Kwak fails to explicitly disclose an
`
`increase in supply current (id), and therefore argues that the supply current (id) in
`
`Kwak must increase because linear amplifier current (ia) decreases. Petitioner argues
`
`that Kwak discloses this claim element due to the equation io=ia+id. But as detailed
`
`below, Petitioner’s argument is that Kwak inherently discloses an increase in supply
`
`current (id). Petitioner, however, obfuscates the relevant legal standard by choosing
`
`not to characterize its argument as an inherency argument, even though that is what
`
`it is. Under the correct legal standard, Kwak does not inherently disclose an increase
`
`in supply current (id).
`
`A reference may anticipate “when the claim limitations not expressly found
`
`in that reference are nonetheless inherent in it.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301
`
`F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Under the principles of inherency, if the prior
`
`art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it
`
`anticipates.” MEHL/Biophile Int'l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365, (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999). But “[i]nherency [] may not be established by probabilities or
`
`possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
`
`circumstances is not sufficient.” Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d
`
`629, 639 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s argument that (id) must increase as a result of a decrease in (ia) is
`
`categorically false when working with the complex variables in AC signals.
`
`Petitioner insistently argues that in equation io=ia+id, if (io) is constant, and the
`
`magnitude of (ia) decreases, then the magnitude of (id) must increase. But
`
`Petitioner’s argument applies only to DC signals and entirely ignores the complex
`
`variables present in AC signals, like in Kwak. As explained and demonstrated by
`
`Dr. Kelley, Petitioner’s oversimplification does not account for the phases of the AC
`
`signals. In AC signals, a phase shift in (id) can cause a decrease in the magnitude of
`
`(ia) without any corresponding increase in magnitude of (id).
`
`Dr. Kelley’s diagrams demonstrate Petitioner’s mathematical errors. First, in
`
`Kwak’s equation, the values (ia), (io), and (id) are all complex quantities – meaning
`
`that they have both a magnitude component and a phase component. The full
`
`complex notation for (ia), (io), and (id), as explained by Petitioner’s expert, is as
`
`follows:
`
`(cid:1861)(cid:3042)(cid:3404)(cid:1835)(cid:3042)(cid:1857)(cid:3037)(cid:4666)(cid:3087)(cid:3290)(cid:2878)(cid:3104)(cid:3047)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1835)(cid:3042)(cid:4666)cos(cid:4666)(cid:2033)(cid:1872)(cid:3397)(cid:2016)(cid:3042)(cid:4667)(cid:3397)(cid:1862)(cid:1871)(cid:1861)(cid:1866)(cid:4666)(cid:2033)(cid:1872)(cid:3397)(cid:2016)(cid:3042)(cid:4667)(cid:4667)
`(cid:1861)(cid:3028)(cid:3404)(cid:1835)(cid:3028)(cid:1857)(cid:3037)(cid:4666)(cid:3087)(cid:3276)(cid:2878)(cid:3104)(cid:3047)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1835)(cid:3028)(cid:4666)cos(cid:4666)(cid:2033)(cid:1872)(cid:3397)(cid:2016)(cid:3028)(cid:4667)(cid:3397)(cid:1862)(cid:1871)(cid:1861)(cid:1866)(cid:4666)(cid:2033)(cid:1872)(cid:3397)(cid:2016)(cid:3028)(cid:4667)(cid:4667)
`(cid:1861)(cid:3031)(cid:3404)(cid:1835)(cid:3031)(cid:1857)(cid:3037)(cid:4666)(cid:3087)(cid:3279)(cid:2878)(cid:3104)(cid:3047)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1835)(cid:3031)(cid:4666)cos(cid:4666)(cid:2033)(cid:1872)(cid:3397)(cid:2016)(cid:3031)(cid:4667)(cid:3397)(cid:1862)(cid:1871)(cid:1861)(cid:1866)(cid:4666)(cid:2033)(cid:1872)(cid:3397)(cid:2016)(cid:3031)(cid:4667)(cid:4667)
`(cid:1835)(cid:3042)(cid:3435)cos(cid:4666)(cid:2033)(cid:1872)(cid:3397)(cid:2016)(cid:3042)(cid:4667)(cid:3397)(cid:1862)(cid:1871)(cid:1861)(cid:1866)(cid:4666)(cid:2033)(cid:1872)(cid:3397)(cid:2016)(cid:3042)(cid:4667)(cid:3439)(cid:3404)
` (cid:1835)(cid:3028)(cid:3435)cos(cid:4666)(cid:2033)(cid:1872)(cid:3397)(cid:2016)(cid:3028)(cid:4667)(cid:3397)(cid:1862)(cid:1871)(cid:1861)(cid:1866)(cid:4666)(cid:2033)(cid:1872)(cid:3397)(cid:2016)(cid:3028)(cid:4667)(cid:3439)(cid:3397)(cid:1835)(cid:3031)(cid:4666)cos(cid:4666)(cid:2033)(cid:1872)(cid:3397)(cid:2016)(cid:3031)(cid:4667)(cid:3397)(cid:1862)(cid:1871)(cid:1861)(cid:1866)(cid:4666)(cid:2033)(cid:1872)(cid:3397)(cid:2016)(cid:3031)(cid:4667)(cid:4667).
`
`The equation io=ia+id therefore becomes:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Ex. 2004 at 10:8-13:7; Ex. 2004 at Exhibit A. In the equation above, Io, Ia, and Id
`
`are the magnitude components and (cid:2016)(cid:3042), (cid:2016)(cid:3028), and (cid:2016)(cid:3031) are the phase components of (ia),
`
`(io), and (id), respectively. Petitioner inflexibly argues that in the equation io=ia+id,
`
`if the magnitude Ia of (ia) decreases, and the magnitude Io of (io) stays the same, then
`
`the magnitude Id of (id) must increase. This is mathematically indefensible because
`
`it completely ignores the other three variables of the complex equation, (cid:2016)(cid:3042), (cid:2016)(cid:3028), and
`(cid:2016)(cid:3031). Without knowing the values of the phase variables ((cid:2016)(cid:3042), (cid:2016)(cid:3028), and (cid:2016)(cid:3031)), it is
`
`mathematically impossible to conclude, as Petitioner has, that a decrease in the
`
`magnitude Ia of (ia) must result in an increase in the magnitude Id of (id). Rather, it
`
`is perfectly feasible for the magnitude Id of (id) to remain exactly the same with only
`
`a change in phase, as shown in Figures 11(a) and (b) of Kwak, or even for the
`
`magnitude Id of (id) to decrease. These basic mathematics cannot be disputed.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on calculations and example waveforms provided by Dr.
`
`Apsel are misleading and untethered to Kwak. As Dr. Apsel admitted in her
`
`deposition, the calculations and waveforms are “not an example of simulating
`
`Kwak’s Figure 5.” Ex. 2004 at 20:6-7. Instead, Dr. Apsel chose the variables at
`
`random. See Ex. 2004 at 19:3 – 22:4. Dr. Apsel further explained that the values
`
`she calculated are dependent on her randomly chosen values to plug in for the
`
`variables:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Q. So the values you’ve calculated here for the magnitude
`
`of Id are dependent on the phase values that you used for
`
`id and ia in this example, correct?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And if you had other phase values you’d have other
`
`magnitude values, correct?
`
`A. That’s correct.
`
`Ex. 2004 at 22:14-21.
`
`
`
`Dr. Apsel’s testimony leaves open the possibility that the magnitude of (id)
`
`may remain the same or decrease as a result of a decrease in the magnitude of (ia).
`
`The Federal Circuit makes clear that probabilities or possibilities are insufficient to
`
`satisfy a finding of inherency. Bettcher, 661 F.3d at 639. “The mere fact that a
`
`certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Id.
`
`Petitioner’s argument that a POSA would understand that Kwak’s system “could”
`
`increase the supply current (id), or that this might be somehow beneficial, is not
`
`enough. Accordingly, Petitioner is unable to satisfy its burden of showing that Kwak
`
`inherently discloses each limitation of claim 15.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Petitioner Improperly Combines Two Different Embodiments
`From Kwak
`As demonstrated in the POR, Petitioner improperly relies on the combination
`
`of the embodiments shown in Kwak’s Figures 5 and 6, without providing any
`
`motivation to combine these different embodiments. Paper 16 at 17-24. In its Reply,
`
`Petitioner now argues that claim 15 is anticipated by Figure 5 of Kwak alone, despite
`
`relying on the combination of Figures 5 and 6 in the Petition. This new theory,
`
`argued for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply, should be rejected as contrary to the
`
`statute, rules, and basic fairness. Further, even if the Board were to consider
`
`Petitioner’s untimely anticipation argument, Figure 5 of Kwak does not disclose the
`
`limitation “adding an offset to the input current,” and therefore does not anticipate
`
`claim 15 for at least this additional reason.
`
`
`
`First, Petitioner relied on the combination of Figures 5 and 6 in its Petition.
`
`For example, Petitioner cites both figures, and their accompanying discussions, to
`
`meet the claim 15 limitation “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.” See Paper 3 at 42-49.
`
`Petitioner reproduced and annotated Figure 6, and emphasized portions of text
`
`describing Figure 6. Id. at 44-45.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Second, Petitioner’s argument that claim 15 is anticipated by Figure 5 alone
`
`is a new argument introduced in the Reply. The argument therefore is untimely and
`
`should not be considered by the Board. The Federal Circuit has stated it is of the
`
`“utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement
`
`that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the
`
`ground for the challenge to each claim.’” See Intelligent Bio-Systems v. Illumina
`
`Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(3)). “[T]he expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for
`
`petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” Id. See also Ariosa
`
`Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“challenger
`
`obliged to make an adequate case in its Petition and the Reply limited to a true
`
`rebuttal role”).
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Figure 6 is not merely redundant to Figure 5, as the
`
`Reply seemingly argues. Rather, Figure 6 is necessary to Petitioner’s anticipation
`
`ground because Figure 5 plainly fails to disclose “adding an offset to the input
`
`current.” Therefore, even if the Board were to consider Petitioner’s belated attempt
`
`to re-characterize its anticipation ground as relying only on the Figure 5 embodiment,
`
`claim 15 requires adding an offset to an input current. The claim further specifies
`
`that this “adding” operation be performed using “a summer operative to sum the
`
`input current and an offset current and provide a summed current.” The embodiment
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`shown in Figure 5 of Kwak does not disclose the summation of an input current with
`
`an offset current. Rather, Kwak distinguishes the embodiments shown in Figures 5
`
`and 6 by explaining that Figure 5 shows the summation of “voltage signals,” whereas
`
`Figure 6 shows a different embodiment in which the voltage signals are converted
`
`into current signals before summation:
`
`Fig. 6 shows the detailed circuit of the hybrid switching
`amplifier. 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 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 at 2669 (emphasis added). Kwak thus makes clear that Figure 5 sums
`
`voltage signals, and therefore cannot meet the claim 15 limitation “adding an offset
`
`to the input current.” For at least these additional reasons, Petitioner has failed to
`
`establish that Kwak anticipates independent claim 15. Because all grounds set forth
`
`in the Petition rely on the anticipation allegations against claim 15, the Board should
`
`confirm the patentability of all challenged claims.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`III. CLAIM 19 IS NOT OBVIOUS OVER KWAK IN VIEW OF CHOI
`2010
`A. Claim 19 Requires A Selective Boost
`As Patent Owner explained in its Patent Owner Response, the claim 19
`
`limitation of “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” is properly interpreted to require a selective boost.
`
`Petitioner failed to present any argument in the Petition regarding the construction
`
`of claim 19. In its Reply, Petitioner ignores Patent Owner’s arguments and instead
`
`focuses on claim 6, a different claim with different limitations. As explained below,
`
`the District Court’s Order with respect to claims 6-7 has no bearing on claim 19, and
`
`Petitioner’s proposed constructions for claim 6 and claim 19 suffer from the same
`
`legal error – they improperly render other claim limitations meaningless.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claim 19 limitation quoted above requires a selective boost.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance On Judge Sabraw’s Order Is
`Misguided
`Petitioner relies on Judge Sabraw’s Markman Order to support its proposed
`
`construction that claim 19 does not require a selective boost. Petitioner’s reliance
`
`on Judge Sabraw’s Order is misguided. The Court was presented with proposed
`
`constructions for the term “based on,” as it appears in claim 7, which depends from
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`claim 6. Claims 6 and 7 contain numerous claim limitations relevant to Judge
`
`Sabraw’s Order that are different than in claim 19. Moreover, footnote 2 of Judge
`
`Sabraw’s Order makes clear that the Court’s opinion applied only to the context of
`
`claim 7, and therefore does not apply to any other claims.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner mischaracterizes Judge Sabraw’s Order as reaching a
`
`conclusion that it plainly does not reach. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, Judge
`
`Sabraw did not “hold[] the limitation ‘a source receiving the boosted supply voltage
`
`or the first supply voltage’ in claim 6 does not require ‘selective boost.’” Paper 19
`
`at 4. Judge Sabraw’s Order says nothing of the sort. Instead, Judge Sabraw
`
`incorrectly concluded that claim 7 was indefinite based on a misunderstanding that
`
`claim 7 expanded the scope of claim 6, rather than limiting it.1 Tellingly, Petitioner
`
`does not cite to any particular passage in support of its characterization of Judge
`
`Sabraw’s Order, and instead cites only generally to the entire discussion. But the
`
`general discussion includes no such analysis or conclusion regarding selective boost,
`
`and more importantly, does not address the same claim term as disputed in the
`
`present challenge.
`
`
`1 Petitioner apparently agrees that claim 7 is more limiting than claim 6. Paper 19 at
`5 (“It is therefore that additional language appearing in claim 7 (which does not
`appear in either claim 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.”)
`(emphasis added).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Additionally, Petitioner is wrong in asserting that claim 7 adds nothing over
`
`claim 6 if claim 6 is construed to require a selective boost. Claim 7 recites “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.”
`
`This limitation further narrows the scope of claim 6 by adding an additional mode
`
`of operation: the supply generator can generate the second supply voltage based on
`
`the envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage, or can generate the second
`
`supply voltage based on the envelope signal and the first supply voltage. Contrary
`
`to Petitioner’s assertions, this represents an additional and more limiting feature,
`
`similar to a cell phone that may have operated on a 3G network, and was then
`
`improved to be able to operate on 3G and 4G networks. In this example, the phone
`
`must be capable of operating on both networks (an additional feature), but only needs
`
`to operate on one at a given time. When a dependent claim adds an additional feature
`
`or functionality not present in the independent claim, the dependent claim narrows
`
`the scope of the independent claim. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`2.
`
`The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Cannot Be So
`Broad As To Include Contradicting Embodiments
`Patent Owner’s construction requiring a selective boost is consistent with the
`
`
`
`black-letter law that “[i]t is highly disfavored to construe terms in a way that renders
`
`them void, meaningless, or superfluous.” Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Automotive Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1288 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As Patent Owner
`
`explained in its POR, Petitioner’s proposed construction renders certain claim terms
`
`void, meaningless, or superfluous, and therefore cannot be the correct construction.
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`supported by the specification that gives life to each claim term.
`
`
`
`Petitioner criticizes Patent Owner’s construction as improperly limiting the
`
`claim to a specific embodiment. In particular, Petitioner argues that the claim must
`
`be construed to include an embodiment where “the entire envelope tracker is
`
`operated based on the VBoost voltage from boost converter 180 alone.” Paper 19 at
`
`6. But an embodiment where the entire envelope tracker is operated based only on
`
`the boosted voltage is a different and incompatible embodiment to one where the
`
`envelope tracker may operate selectively based on a first voltage or a boosted voltage.
`
`It is impossible for an envelope tracker to both always operate based on a boosted
`
`voltage, while also only sometimes operating based on a boosted voltage.
`
`
`
`Petitioner cites no authority requiring that claims be construed to cover all
`
`embodiments, nor could it. The Federal Circuit makes clear that “[i]t is not
`
`necessary that each claim read on every embodiment.” Baran v. Med. Device Techs.,
`
`Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See also PPC Broadband, Inc. v.
`
`Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(recognizing no requirement that “each and every claim ought to be interpreted to
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`cover each and every embodiment”). Moreover, “the fact that one construction may
`
`cover more embodiments than another does not categorically render that
`
`construction reasonable.” PPC Broadband, 815 F.3d at 755.
`
`
`
`If Patent Owner intended for claim 19 to cover an embodiment where “the
`
`entire envelope tracker is operated based on the VBoost voltage from boost converter
`
`180 alone,” then Patent Owner would have used language to that effect. Instead,
`
`claim 19 recites the “envelope amplifier operates based on the first supply voltage
`
`or the boosted supply voltage,” which unequivocally relates to the disclosed
`
`selective boost embodiment. See Paper 16 at 39-41. Petitioner’s arguments are
`
`contrary to established Federal Circuit precedent and the intrinsic record.
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Apsel’s Testimony Supports Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`Petitioner’s attempt to diminish Dr. Apsel’s testimony fails to substantively
`
`address Patent Owner’s argument that a selective boost is the only reasonable
`
`interpretation that gives meaning to all claim terms. See Digital-Vending Servs. Int'l,
`
`LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 672 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“claims are
`
`interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.”); Wasica
`
`Finance, 853 F.3d at 1288 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[i]t is highly disfavored to
`
`construe terms in a way that renders them void, meaningless, or superfluous.”); In
`
`re Danly, 46 C.C.P.A. 792, 263 F.2d 844, 847 (1959) (limiting claims to require that
`
`the claimed device actually be connected to an alternating current source because,
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`although the claims “do not positively recite a source of alternating current as an
`
`element of the claims,” any other interpretation would render certain language in the
`
`claims meaningless).
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction seeks to construe a single claim term
`
`without reference to the rest of the claim language. Petitioner makes much of the
`
`word “or,” and attempts to frame Patent Owner’s argument as contrary to the
`
`common understanding of “or.” But Petitioner and Dr. Apsel entirely ignore the
`
`central premise of Patent Owner’s argument: that claim terms must be read as a
`
`whole and construed so as to avoid rendering other claim terms meaningless. As
`
`Patent Owner explained in its POR, “despite the claim’s inclusion of the conjunction
`
`‘or,’ the ‘boosted supply voltage’ and the ‘first supply voltage’ are not alternative
`
`options. The claimed envelope amplifier must be capable of operating based on both
`
`– one or the other at any given time, as selected by and based on an operational
`
`condition.” Paper 16 at 41.
`
`The claim as a whole makes evident that both the first supply voltage and the
`
`boosted supply voltage are required in the claims and are not merely alternative
`
`options. In her depositions, Dr. Apsel was asked about certain limitations in the
`
`context of claim 6, a claim that Petitioner challenges in related case IPR2018-01153.
`
`As Patent Owner explained in that case, claim 6 requires certain elements, such as a
`
`boosted supply voltage, that