UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ARTHUR W. KELLEY
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`By:
`
`~ :N ~t.j/45h_o1 °I
`
`Arthur W. Kelley, Ph.D.
`
`Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated
`IPR2018-01240
`Exhibit 2002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ............................................................... 3 
`I. 
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................. 5 
`II. 
`III.  THE ’558 PATENT ......................................................................................... 9 
`A.  Overview of the ’558 Patent .................................................................. 9 
`B. 
`Prosecution History of the ’558 Patent ............................................... 15 
`C. 
`Level of Skill in the Art ....................................................................... 18 
`D. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 19 
`1. 
`“Envelope Signal” (Claim 11) ................................................................. 19 
`2.  Means-Plus-Function Limitations (Claims 10 and 11) ............................ 19 
`3. 
`Selective Boost Limitations (Claims 10 and 11) ..................................... 20 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF THE CITED REFERENCES ............................................ 29 
`A.  Overview of Chu ................................................................................. 29 
`B.  Overview of Choi 2010 ....................................................................... 33 
`C.  Overview of Hanington ....................................................................... 36 
`D.  Overview of Myers .............................................................................. 36 
`V.  GROUND I OF THE PETITION IS BASED ON AN
`UNSUPPORTABLE CLAIM INTERPRETATION .................................... 40 
`VI.  THE POSA WOULD NOT HAVE COMBINED CHU AND CHOI 2010 . 41 
`VII.  THE POSA WOULD NOT HAVE COMBINED MYERS WITH CHU
`AND CHOI 2010 ........................................................................................... 48 
`A.  A POSA Would Understand That Choi 2010 Teaches Away From
`“Selective Boost” ................................................................................ 49 
`B.  A POSA Would Not Have Combined Myers With Chu And Choi
`2010 ..................................................................................................... 51 
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Qualcomm Incorporated
`
`(“Qualcomm” or “Patent Owner”) in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,698,558 (“the ’558 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate of $450 for consulting services. My compensation in no way depends
`
`on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`a.
`b.
`
`c.
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I considered the following materials:
`
`The ’558 Patent (Ex. 1301) and its file history (Ex. 1302);
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558,
`IPR2018-01240 (Paper 3) (“Petition” or “Paper 3”);
`The Declaration of Dr. Alyssa B. Apsel (Ex. 1303);
`Chu, W.Y., et al., “A 10 MHz Bandwidth, 2 mV Ripple PA Regulator
`for CDMA Transmitters,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits: 2809-
`2819 (2008) (“Chu”) (Ex. 1304);
`Choi, J., et al., “Envelope tracking power amplifier robust to battery
`depletion,” Microwave Symposium Digest (MTT), 2010 IEEE MTT-S
`International: 1332-36 (2010) (“Choi 2010”) (Ex. 1306);
`Blanken, P.G. et al., “A 50MHz Bandwidth Multi-Mode PA Supply
`Modulator for GSM, EDGE and UMTS Application,” 2008 Radio
`Frequency Integrated Circuits Symposium (IEEE) 401-04 (2008)
`(“Blanken”) (Ex. 1310);
`Kwak, T.W., et al., “A 2 W CMOS hybrid switching amplitude
`modulator for EDGE polar transmitters,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State
`Circuits 2666-76 (2007) (“Kwak”) (Ex. 1311);
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,929,702, “Method and Apparatus for High Efficiency
`High Dynamic Range Power Amplification,” to Myers, et al. (“Myers”)
`(Ex. 1312);
`Kim, D. et al., “High Efficiency and Wideband Envelope Tracking
`Power Amplifier with Sweet Spot Tracking,” Radio Frequency
`Integrated Circuits Symposium (RFIC): 255-258 (2010) (“Kim”) (Ex.
`1313);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,300,826, “Apparatus and Method for Efficiently
`Amplifying Wideband Envelope Signals,” to Mathe, et al. (“Mathe”)
`(Ex. 1314);
`k. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., MAX9738 – 16VP-P Class G
`Amplifier with Inverting Boost Converter, Datasheet 19-3700, Rev. 0
`(March 2008) (“Maxim”) (Ex. 1315);
`Ertl et al., “Basic considerations and topologies of switched-mode
`assisted linear power amplifiers,” IEEE Transactions On Industrial
`Electronics, Vol. 44, No. 1 at 116-123 (1997) (“Ertl”) (Ex. 1316);
`m. Kang, D. et al., “A Multimode/Multiband Power Amplifier With a
`Boosted Supply Modulator,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory
`and Techniques 58.10 (2010): 2598-2608 (“Kang”) (Ex. 1317);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,834,977, “Amplifying Circuit with Power Supply
`Switching Circuit,” to Maehara, et al. (“Maehara”) (Ex. 1318);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,340, “Multiplexer,” to Ohsawa (“Ohsawa”) (Ex.
`1319);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,566,935, “Power Supply Circuit With a Voltage,” to
`Renous (“Renous”) (Ex. 1320);
`Certificate of Correction for the ’558 Patent (Ex. 1321);
`
`l.
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`p.
`
`q.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Qualcomm Initial Claim Construction Brief, Certain Mobile Electronic
`Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing Components Thereof,
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1065 (“Qualcomm Brief”) (Ex. 1322);
`Order No. 28: Construing Terms of the Asserted Patents, Certain
`Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing
`Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-1065 (“Markman
`Order”) (Ex. 1323);
`Erickson, Robert W.; Maksimovic, Dragan, “Fundamentals of Power
`Electronics,” (excerpts) (Ex. 1324);
`Hanington, Gary et al., “High-Efficiency Power Amplifier Using
`Dynamic Power-Supply Voltage for CDMA Applications,” IEEE
`Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 47:8 (1999)
`(“Hanington”) (Ex. 1325);
`Initial Determination and Recommended Determination, Certain
`Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing
`Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-1065 (“Initial
`Determination”) (Ex. 2001).
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`4.
`I am an electrical and computer engineering consultant with over 35
`
`t.
`
`u.
`
`v.
`
`r.
`
`s.
`
`I.
`
`years of expertise and experience consulting on semiconductor technologies,
`
`including power management integrated circuits. I have provided my opinions
`
`and/or testimony as an expert witness in topics relating to power electronics in
`
`matters before the International Trade Commission, U.S. district courts, and the U.S.
`
`Patent Trial and Appeals Board.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`5.
`
`I earned bachelor’s (summa cum laude), master’s, and Ph.D. degrees in
`
`Electrical Engineering from Duke University. I received my Ph.D. degree in 1984.
`
`6.
`
`From 1985 to 1987, I worked as a senior engineer at Sundstrand
`
`Corporation, where I worked on power electronics in the aerospace applications
`
`field, including commercial aircraft, military aircraft, and spacecraft.
`
`7.
`
`From 1987 to 2001, I was a professor with the Department of Electrical
`
`and Computer Engineering at North Carolina State University, where I was tenured
`
`and became Associate Professor in 1993. During this time, I developed and taught
`
`undergraduate and graduate course curricula in power electronics. I also developed
`
`funded research programs in areas including power electronics, semiconductor
`
`devices, and power systems.
`
`8.
`
`From 2000 to 2007, I worked as a senior design engineer at Linear
`
`Technology Corporation, which designs, manufactures, and markets a broad line of
`
`high-performance
`
`integrated circuits for sale worldwide.
`
` My principal
`
`responsibilities in this role involved the design of high-performance analog
`
`integrated circuits for power management. Additionally, I was also responsible for
`
`other aspects of product and technology development, including product definition,
`
`layout, manufacture, debug, ESD, functional test, life test, characterization,
`
`correlation, and applications.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`9.
`
`Since September 2007, I have worked as an independent consultant
`
`advising clients in matters related to power electronics, semiconductor designs,
`
`switching regulators, and others.
`
`10.
`
`I have authored more than 30 publications on power electronics topics.
`
`I am also an inventor on 9 U.S. patents, all of which relate to power electronics.
`
`11.
`
`I served as the Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Power Electronics Society’s
`
`newsletter from 2009 to 2012. From 2000 to 2002, I was the Editor-in-Chief of
`
`IEEE Transactions On Power Electronics, the premier journal in my field. In 2003,
`
`I received the IEEE Power Electronics Society Service Award. And in 1997, I was
`
`the program chair for the IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference.
`
`12. These and other qualifications and experiences are described in my
`
`curriculum vitae, which is attached at Appendix A.
`
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`13.
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether claims 10 and
`
`11 of the ’558 Patent are anticipated by the alleged prior art or would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, in view of the alleged prior art.
`
`14.
`
`I am an engineer by training and profession. The opinions I am
`
`expressing in this Declaration involve the application of my engineering knowledge
`
`and experience to the evaluation of certain alleged prior art with respect to the ’558
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Patent. Aside from my experience in litigation support, my knowledge of patent law
`
`is no different than that of any lay person. Therefore, I have requested the attorneys
`
`from Jones Day, who represent Qualcomm, to provide me with guidance as to the
`
`applicable patent law in this matter. The paragraphs below express my
`
`understanding of how I must apply current principles related to patentability.
`
`15.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`anticipated or obvious in view of the alleged prior art, the Patent Office must
`
`construe the claim by giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification as it would have been understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. For the purposes of this review, I have construed each claim term in
`
`accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the required broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation.
`
`16.
`
`It
`
`is my understanding
`
`that a claim
`
`is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element and limitation of the claim is found either
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.
`
`17.
`
`It
`
`is my understanding
`
`that a claim
`
`is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`
`to a POSA at the time of the alleged invention. I also understand that an obviousness
`
`analysis takes into account the scope and content of the prior art, the differences
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`18.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered appropriate prior art if it falls within the
`
`field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is prior art if it is reasonably
`
`pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. A
`
`reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have commended itself to an
`
`inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a reference relates to the same
`
`problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of the reference as prior art in
`
`an obviousness analysis.
`
`19. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires the claimed invention
`
`be considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment requires showing that one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same problems
`
`as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected
`
`the elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed manner.
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include: combining prior art
`
`elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; a
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions;
`
`applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and some
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`21.
`
`It is my further understanding that there are certain limits on combining
`
`references in an obviousness determination. One limit is that the combination of
`
`references cannot be based on impermissible hindsight. I understand that
`
`impermissible hindsight may occur if, for example, different components are
`
`selectively culled from the prior art to fit the parameters of the invention, without a
`
`teaching or suggestion within the prior art, or within the general knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention, to look to particular sources of
`
`information, to select particular elements, and to combine them in the way they were
`
`combined by the inventor. Another limit on combining references is when a
`
`reference teaches away from a specific combination. I understand that a first prior
`
`art reference may teach away from a second reference if the first reference
`
`discourages a POSA from following the path set out in the second reference, or
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`would be led in a direction divergent from the path taken by the applicant.
`
`Additionally, I understand that even if a reference is not found to teach away, its
`
`statements regarding preferences are still relevant to a finding regarding whether a
`
`POSA would be motivated to combine that reference with another reference.
`
`III. THE ’558 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’558 Patent
`22. U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558 (the “’558 Patent”) is titled “Low-Voltage
`
`Power-Efficient Envelope Tracker.” The ’558 Patent was filed on June 23, 2011.
`
`The ’558 Patent relates to an envelope tracking technique used to manage power in
`
`radio frequency (RF) transmission of a mobile device. Specifically, the ’558 Patent
`
`discloses employing two different power sources, namely an envelope amplifier and
`
`a switcher, to supply time-varying supply voltage to an RF power amplifier (“PA”).
`
`The RF PA is responsible for amplifying a low-power RF signal into a higher power
`
`signal for external transmission via an antenna. As the PA is one of the most power-
`
`consuming components in RF circuitries, the performance and efficiency of a PA is
`
`critical for the overall power performance of a mobile device.
`
`23.
`
`In the prior art, a PA in RF transmission typically used a constant power
`
`supply voltage, as shown in Figure 2A of the ’558 Patent below:
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`
`24. Because the power required by the PA varies depending on the
`
`envelope of the RF signal, using a constant power supply voltage led to unnecessary
`
`dissipation of power. In mobile devices, such constant power provision undesirably
`
`and prematurely uses the battery. Furthermore, the unused power is dissipated as
`
`residual heat within an electronic device, and overexposure of integrated circuits and
`
`other electrical components to heat may degrade the reliability of the device. As a
`
`result, the useful lifetime of the device can be considerably shortened.
`
`25. The ’558 Patent employs a technique called “envelope tracking” to
`
`better tailor power consumption to needed power usage. Envelope tracking works
`
`by adaptively increasing or decreasing the power supply voltage of the PA to more
`
`closely match the amplitude of the output RF signal. As a result, wasted power and
`
`unnecessary heat is minimized. See Ex. 1301 at 4:26-30. This is shown in Figure
`
`2C of the ’558 Patent:
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`
`
`With this configuration, “the difference between the PA supply voltage and the
`
`envelope of the RFout signal is small, which results in less wasted power.” Id.
`
`26. Although envelope tracking is a helpful technique, there are challenges
`
`to implementing it in a mobile device. Unlike base stations that receive a constant
`
`supply of power, a mobile device relies on a battery for its operations, including
`
`powering an RF PA for data transmissions. The battery voltage, however, decreases
`
`as the battery is discharged, and is not always sufficiently high for the PA to amplify
`
`an input RF signal to a desired output power level. See id. at 3:46-56.
`
`27. This is particularly problematic for user experience because, whether a
`
`smartphone is fully charged or at a 10% battery level, a user should be able to
`
`perform all normal operations of the device, including web browsing and video
`
`chatting, until the battery dies. But if the PA does not transmit signals accurately at
`
`low battery, then low battery would effectively handicap the operations of a
`
`smartphone and prevent the user from squeezing the remaining power out of the
`
`battery.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`28. To address this issue, the ’558 Patent discloses an extremely efficient
`
`design for an envelope tracker that utilizes different power sources: a switcher and
`
`a linear envelope amplifier. These two power sources work together to efficiently
`
`generate the PA supply voltage.
`
`29. A switcher—also known as a “switching regulator”—is highly efficient
`
`because it relies on an energy storage element such as an inductor that can store
`
`energy and release it at a desired voltage level, thus dissipating minimal heat.
`
`Because an inductor is charged only when the switcher is “on,” the system can
`
`regulate the output voltage level by controlling the duration of the time the switcher
`
`is “on.”
`
`30.
`
`In contrast, a linear envelope amplifier (or simply an “envelope
`
`amplifier”) is less efficient because it uses a linear topology, meaning it continuously
`
`receives input power and dissipates unused power as heat in order to set the voltage
`
`output at the desired level. An envelope amplifier is easier to implement than a
`
`switcher, however, because there is no need for a switching mechanism such as
`
`charging and discharging of an inductor. The envelope amplifier is thus better suited
`
`than the switcher for supplying rapidly-fluctuating voltages because, when the
`
`output power needs to be quickly increased and decreased, turning the switcher on
`
`and off to handle such variations can be costly.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`31.
`
`In light of these unique benefits provided by a switcher and an envelope
`
`amplifier, the overall system efficiency can be optimized if the two suppliers of
`
`energy are operated in tandem such that (1) the switcher, which is more efficient,
`
`provides a majority of energy to the PA; and (2) the envelope amplifier, which is
`
`less efficient but can more quickly adjust its output, provides only the fast-changing
`
`(i.e., high frequency) portion of the energy to the PA.
`
`32.
`
`In such a system comprising dual sources of PA supply voltage, the
`
`’558 Patent discloses at least two inventive approaches to further improving the
`
`overall efficiency. First, the ’558 Patent discloses connecting a boost converter
`
`(which “boosts” or increases the battery voltage to a higher level) only with the
`
`envelope amplifier, and not the switcher, to reduce overall usage of the boost
`
`converter. Because the switcher provides power most of the time, the efficiency
`
`drag from the boost converter is thus limited to the time in which the envelope
`
`amplifier provides power. See id. at 8:17-23. Moreover, the ’558 Patent teaches
`
`that the boost converter is operated dynamically, i.e., “only when needed for large
`
`amplitude envelope.” See id. at 6:29-33, 5:31-49, 8:55-62. When a boosted voltage
`
`is not needed, the envelope amplifier operates based on the battery voltage without
`
`relying on the boost converter. See id. at 6:29-33, 5:31-49. By minimizing the
`
`efficiency drop caused by the addition of a boost converter, the ’558 Patent
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`introduces an efficient and practical solution to integrate a boost converter into an
`
`envelope tracking circuitry. I refer to this feature as “selective boost.”
`
`33. Second, the ’558 Patent discloses that an “offset” may be used to
`
`increase the amount of current generated by the switcher. See Ex. 1301 at 7:41-48.
`
`The switcher includes a current sense amplifier that senses the current generated
`
`from the linear envelope amplifier and uses that current to output voltages that
`
`determine the duty cycle of a switcher.
`
`34. For example, in Figure 5 of the ’558 Patent, when the Current Sense
`
`Amplifier 330 senses a high output current from the Envelope Amplifier, it provides
`
`a low sensed voltage to Driver 332, turning the switcher “on.” See id. at 5:7-10.
`
`Conversely, when the Current Sense Amplifier 330 senses a low output current from
`
`the Envelope Amplifier, it provides a high sensed voltage to driver 332, turning the
`
`switcher “off.” See id. at 5:18-20. As explained above, it is only during the “on”
`
`state that the Switcher provides current, through the inductor 142, to the PA. Thus,
`
`the longer the switcher is turned “on,” the larger the current supplied to the PA.
`
`35. By using an offset to change the output of the current sense amplifier,
`
`one can increase the current supplied by the switcher. There are a number of ways
`
`to implement such an offset feature. For example, as provided by the ’558 Patent,
`
`one can add an offset to increase “the pulse width of an output signal from current
`
`sense amplifier.” See id. at 7:30-32. A pulse width is a commonly used term in
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`digital signaling and simply refers to the duration of the time the signal is in a
`
`particular state (i.e., high or low). In the context of the embodiment shown in Figure
`
`5, increasing the pulse width of an output signal from current sense amplifier would
`
`increase the on-time of the switcher, causing it to generate a larger current to the PA.
`
`B.
`36.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’558 Patent
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the ’558 Patent. Following
`
`is a brief summary of key events.
`
`37. The initial application (Application No. 13/167,659) was filed on June
`
`23, 2011.
`
`38. On November 23, 2012, original claims 1, 2, 6-17, 19-21, 24-26 were
`
`rejected under 35 USC 102(a) as being anticipated by Kim, et al., titled “High
`
`Efficiency and Wideband Envelope Tracking Power Amplifier with Sweet Spot
`
`Tracking” (“Kim”) (Ex. 1313). The Examiner reasoned that Kim discloses a hybrid
`
`switching supply modulator for an RF PA consisting of a 3.4 V to 5 V boost
`
`converter and a linear amplifier. See Ex. 1302 at 61-63. The Examiner also
`
`indicated that original claims 4, 5, 18, 22, and 23 would be allowable if rewritten in
`
`independent form. Original claims 4, 5 and 18 recited an op-amp, a driver, a PMOS
`
`transistor having a source receiving either the boosted voltage or the supply voltage,
`
`and an NMOS transistor, and original claims 22 and 23 recited a summer, a current
`
`sense amplifier, and a driver.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`39.
`
`In response, the applicants amended certain claims as highlighted
`
`below.
`
`
`
`See Ex. 1302 at 82.
`
`40. The inclusion of selective boost is reflected in the PMOS transistor
`
`limitations reciting that its source receives the boosted supply voltage or the first
`
`supply voltage. Thus, with respect to Kim, the applicants explained that Kim does
`
`not teach, among other things, “a [PMOS] transistor having . . . a source receiving
`
`the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage.” Id. at 87.
`
`41. The basis on which Kim was distinguished is consistent with my
`
`interpretation of Kim. Kim teaches using a 5 V boost converter to achieve “higher
`
`gain, efficiency, output power and wider bandwidth.” Ex. 1313 at 255; see also id.
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`at 256 (“By boosting the supply voltage of the linear amplifier, PA’s supply voltage
`
`increases up to 4.5 V and peak output power of the PA also increases to 33.4 dBm.”).
`
`Kim’s exemplary implementation of the linear amplifier further shows that the
`
`output stage PMOS transistor is only connected to the output of the boost converter.
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`
`
`42.
`
`In a subsequent Final Office Action dated May 10, 2013, the Examiner
`
`indicated that original claim 14 as amended recited allowable subject matter over the
`
`prior art of record, including Kim. Id. at 134. On July 26, 2013, the Examiner
`
`allowed all claims but original claim 8, citing U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0293253 (“Khlat”)
`
`as allegedly anticipating claim 8. See id. at 161-162. In response, the applicant
`
`cancelled original claim 8 (see id. at 176), and the patent issued shortly thereafter.
`
`See id. at 185-191. Original claims 14-15 issued as claims 10-11. Id. at 194.
`
`C. Level of Skill in the Art
`43.
`I understand that Petitioner has proposed that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art relevant to the ’558 Patent would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science plus at least two years of
`
`relevant experience; or a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`years of relevant experience, where “relevant experience,” in the context of the ’558
`
`Patent, refers to experience with mobile device architecture, as well as transmission
`
`and power circuitry for radio frequency devices.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`I do not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the ’558
`
`Patent, I must do so based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`relevant priority date. I understand that the ’558 Patent was filed on June 23, 2011.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`1.
`“Envelope Signal” (Claim 11)
`I understand that Petitioner applied an interpretation of the term
`
`46.
`
`“envelope signal” to mean “signal indicative of the upper bound of the output RF
`
`signal.” See Paper 3 at 39-40. I do not contest this claim interpretation.
`
`2. Means-Plus-Function Limitations (Claims 10 and 11)
`I understand that Petitioner proposed constructions for several terms
`
`47.
`
`that Petitioner alleges are governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. Petitioner alleges that
`
`“means for generating a boosted supply voltage based on a first supply voltage”
`
`recites the function of “generating a boosted supply voltage based on a first supply
`
`voltage,” and the corresponding structure is boost converter 180. Paper 3 at 40-43.
`
`48. Petitioner alleges that the claim 10 limitation “means for generating a
`
`second supply voltage based on the envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage”
`
`recites the function of “generating a second supply voltage based on the envelope
`-19-
`
`
`
`

`

`signal and the boosted supply voltage,” and the corresponding structure is envelope
`
`amplifier 170. Id. at 43-46.
`
`49. Petitioner alleges that the claim 11 limitation “means for generating the
`
`second supply voltage based on an envelope signal and either the boosted supply
`
`voltage or the first supply voltage” performs the function of “generating the second
`
`supply voltage based on an envelope signal and either the boosted supply voltage or
`
`the first supply voltage,” and the corresponding structure is envelope amplifier 170.
`
`Id. at 46-49.
`
`50.
`
`I do not contest Petitioner’s proposed constructions for the three terms
`
`above.
`
`3.
`Selective Boost Limitations (Claims 10 and 11)
`I understand that Petitioner and Dr. Apsel do not present any claim
`
`51.
`
`construction argument regarding whether claim 10 of the ’558 Patent requires a
`
`selective boost. Claim 10 of the ’558 Patent recites “a P-channel metal oxide
`
`semiconductor (PMOS) transistor [having]…a source that receives the boosted
`
`supply voltage or the first supply voltage.” Petitioner argues that this limitation is
`
`met by Choi 2010’s disclosure of “a boost converter to generate a boosted supply
`
`voltage that can be supplied to the envelope amplifier instead of a battery voltage.”
`
`Paper 3 at 69. It is my opinion that Petitioner’s reliance on Choi 2010 to teach this
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`

`

`limitation means that Petitioner is interpreting claim 10 as not requiring a selective
`
`boost. I disagree.
`
`52.
`
`In my opinion, it is clear from the plain language of claim 10, reading
`
`the claim as a whole, and from the specification and prosecution history of the ’558
`
`Patent, that claim 10 requires the source of the PMOS transistor be able to receive,
`
`selectively, either the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage (referred to
`
`herein as a “selective boost”).
`
`53.
`
`In my opinion, Petitioner’s interpretation would render portions of
`
`claim 10 meaningless. For example, claim 10 of the ’558 Patent recites:
`
`10. An apparatus for generating supply voltages,
`comprising:
`
`
`means for generating a boosted supply voltage
`based on a first supply voltage, the boosted supply voltage
`having a higher voltage than the first supply voltage; and
`
`
`means for generating a second supply voltage based
`on the envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage,
`wherein the means for generating the second supply
`voltage incorporates an envelope amplifier that produces
`the second supply voltage using an operational amplifier
`(op-amp) that receives the envelope signal and provides an
`amplified signal, a driver that receives the amplified signal
`and provides a first control signal and a second control
`signal, a P-channel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS)
`transistor that receives the first control signal, a source
`that receives the boosted supply voltage or the first supply
`voltage, and a drain providing the second supply voltage
`and an N-channel metal oxide semiconductor (NMOS)
`transistor that receives the second control signal at a gate
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`

`

`and provides a second supply voltage through a drain, and
`a source for circuit grounding.
`
`54. Ex. 1301, 12:25-45 (emphasis added). As I emphasized above, claim
`
`10 requires “means for generating a boosted supply voltage . . . having a higher
`
`voltage than the first supply voltage,” and further requires “means for generating a
`
`second supply voltage based on the envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage.”
`
`The means for generating a boosted supply voltage must generate “a boosted supply
`
`voltage.” Otherwise, the “means for generating a second supply voltage” limitation
`
`is meaningless.
`
`55. Petitioner’s interpretation requires the source of the PMOS transistor
`
`need only be capable of receiving one or the other of the “boosted supply voltage”
`
`and “first supply voltage.” Petitioner therefore interprets these to be merely optional
`
`limitations. According to Petitioner’s implicit interpretation, if the source of the
`
`PMOS transistor is capable of receiving one, then it need not be capable of receiving
`
`the other, making the other supply voltage purely optional. Applying Petitioner’s
`
`interpretation in the context of claim 10 means that the PMOS transistor may be only
`
`capable of receiving the first supply voltage. But this interpretati