`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`______________________
`
`PRELIMINARY PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. THE ’558 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION HISTORY .................... 1
`A. Overview of the ’558 Patent ............................................................... 1
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’558 Patent .............................................. 6
`III. PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE ’558 PATENT ......... 7
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE CITED REFERENCES ......................................... 8
`A. Overview of Chu .................................................................................. 8
`B. Overview of Choi 2010 ...................................................................... 10
`C. Overview of Myers ............................................................................ 12
`D. Overview of Hanington ..................................................................... 15
`V. GROUND I OF THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT
`
`IS CUMULATIVE OF PRIOR ART APPLIED BY THE PATENT
`
`OFFICE DURING PROSECUTION ........................................................ 17
`VI. GROUND II SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE PETITIONER
`
`HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`
`MYERS WITH CHU OR CHOI 2010 ....................................................... 25
`VII. FILING FOUR SEPARATE PETITIONS AGAINST THE SAME
`
`PATENT IS AN UNNECESSARY AND ABUSIVE DUPLICATION OF
`
`PROCEEDINGS .......................................................................................... 30
`VIII.
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 33
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Petitioner”) raises two obviousness grounds
`
`against only two claims (claims 10 and 11) of U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558 (’558
`
`Patent). But its first ground is based on a combination of references that is nearly
`
`identical to the primary reference applied during prosecution and over which claim
`
`10 was allowed. The second ground relies on a motivation to combine analysis that
`
`is deficient, and was rejected in a parallel investigation by the United States
`
`International Trade Commission (“ITC”). And further, Intel has made no attempt to
`
`meet its burden of showing why the Board should reconsider cumulative art, or to
`
`address the significant defects in its obviousness analysis recognized in the parallel
`
`ITC proceeding. For at least these reasons, the Board should deny institution.
`
`II. THE ’558 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION HISTORY
`A. Overview of the ’558 Patent
`The ’558 Patent describes and claims inventions directed to managing the
`
`power associated with transmitting radio frequency (“RF”) signals from a mobile
`
`device. Ex. 1301, 1:5-31. The ’558 Patent teaches improvements over known power
`
`management schemes by employing a novel form of “envelope tracking.” Id., Title,
`
`3:57-60. The ’558 Patent’s power management scheme achieves substantial power
`
`savings in mobile device transmitters thereby extending a devices’ battery life. Id.
`
`at 3:46-48.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`In wireless communication systems, mobile devices communicate by
`
`transmitting encoded data signals. Ex. 1301, 1:11-17. Before transmitting through
`
`a communications channel, such encoded data signals are first conditioned to
`
`generate RF output signals. Id. Such conditioning typically includes an
`
`amplification step performed by a power amplifier (a “PA”) that provides a high
`
`transmit power. Id. at 1:21-26. A desirable characteristic of mobile device power
`
`amplifiers is an ability to provide high transmit power with high power-added
`
`efficiency and good performance even when the device’s battery is low. Id.
`
`Prior to the priority date of the ’558 Patent, typical PAs in a mobile device
`
`were supplied with a constant power supply voltage, regardless of the PA’s output
`
`power. The ’558 Patent illustrates this in Fig. 2A, below with annotation:
`
`
`
`Fig. 2A illustrates using a battery voltage (Vbat) to supply PA 210, which
`
`provides an RFout signal as an amplified version of RFin. Ex. 1301, 4:1-3. RFout
`
`has a time-varying envelope illustrated by plot 250, which is juxtaposed with voltage
`
`Vbat 260. Vbat remains higher than the largest amplitude of RFout’s envelop in
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`order to prevent clipping of RFout by PA 210. Id. at 4:2-7. A drawback to this
`
`scheme is that the difference between the battery voltage and the envelop of the
`
`RFout signal (shaded red) represents wasted power. Id. at 4:7-9.
`
`As wasted power is undesirable, especially where power is limited by battery
`
`life, the ’558 Patent employs “envelope tracking” in order to better manage power
`
`consumption by using only an amount of power that is needed for a particular signal.
`
`A PA employing envelope tracking is illustrated in Fig. 2C, with annotations, below:
`
`
`
`By employing envelope tracking to produce a PA power supply Vpa, represented in
`
`plot 280, the “supply voltage closely tracks the envelope [250] of the RFout signal
`
`over time.” Ex. 1301, 4:21-27. This maximizes PA efficiency by minimizing the
`
`difference between Vpa and RFout over time, which results in less wasted power.
`
`Id. at 4:27-32.
`
`Implementing a PA supply with envelope tracking in a mobile device poses
`
`unique challenges, because operating a mobile device with a low battery voltage is
`
`often desirable (e.g. to reduce power consumption, extend battery life, etc.). Ex.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1301, 3:46-56. At times a PA may need to operate with a higher voltage than a
`
`battery is providing, in which case a boost converter may be employed at the expense
`
`of increased cost and power consumption. Id.
`
`To address these issues, the ’558 Patent discloses an efficient design for
`
`envelope tracking that employs a “switcher” and an “envelope amplifier” together
`
`with a boost converter, as illustrated in Fig. 3, with annotations below:
`
`
`
`Fig. 3 illustrates an exemplary switcher 160a with envelope amplifier 170a operating
`
`cooperatively to create a supply current Ipa as the sum of Iind from the switcher and
`
`Ienv from the envelop amplifier. Ex. 1301, 4:34-38.
`
`A switcher, e.g. 160a, “has high efficiency” and may deliver “a majority of
`
`the supply current for [PA] 130” in current Iind, which contains DC and low
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`frequency components. Id. at 3:14-17; 6:19-20. An envelope amplifier, e.g. 170a,
`
`on the other hand operates as a linear stage and has high bandwidth. Id. at 6:20-22.
`
`In the combination the switcher reduces the output current of the envelop amplifier
`
`thereby improving overall efficiency, while the envelop amplifier provides the high
`
`frequency components in current Ienv. Id. at 3:21-25; 6:22-24. In this way, the
`
`overall efficiency increases by drawing the majority of current from the high
`
`efficient switcher, and only relying on the envelope amplifier for the high frequency
`
`components.
`
`In order to further increase the efficiency of the system, envelop amplifier
`
`170a predominantly relies on Vbat for power while drawing upon Vboost (which
`
`“boosts” or increases the battery voltage to a higher voltage at the expense of cost
`
`and power consumption) on demand when, e.g., the magnitude of the envelop signal
`
`exceeds a threshold. Ex. 1301, 3:19-21, 52-67; 5:31-36; 6:1-4. In this way, the
`
`linear stage envelop amplifier only draws on the boosted voltage when needed.
`
`Thus, in embodiments of the ’558 Patent, efficiency is increased by only
`
`relying on a boost converter with respect to the envelop amplifier, and because the
`
`switcher provides power most of the time, any efficiency drag from a boost converter
`
`is limited to “the time in which the envelope amplifier 170 provides power.” Ex.
`
`1301, 8:17-23. Efficiency, then, is further increased because the envelope amplifier
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`itself relies on the boost converter dynamically, i.e., “only when needed for large
`
`amplitude envelope.” Id. at 6:28-33.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’558 Patent
`The ’558 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 13/167,659, filed June 6,
`
`2011. Ex. 1302 at 38. A first office action was issued on November 23, 2012,
`
`rejecting each original independent claim, including original independent claim 14,
`
`as anticipated by Kim et al., entitled “High Efficiency and Wideband Envelope
`
`Tracking Power Amplifier with Sweet Spot Tracking.” Ex. 1302, 59-61; Ex. 1313
`
`(Kim), Title. The Examiner provided a detailed examination of original claims 14-
`
`15 in view of Kim. Ex. 1302 at 62-63. The Office found the subject matter in
`
`original claim 4 to be allowable over Kim if rewritten in independent form. Ex. 1302
`
`at 79-82. To overcome the rejections of claim 14, the Applicant incorporated the
`
`subject matter of original claim 4 in independent claim 14. Ex. 1302 at 79-82, 86-
`
`87.
`
`In a subsequent Final Office Action dated May 10, 2013, the Office indicated
`
`that original claim 14 as amended recited allowable subject matter over the prior art
`
`of record including the Kim paper. Id. at 134. Thereafter, the Applicant and the
`
`Office addressed unrelated claims before a Notice of Allowance was issued on Feb.
`
`13, 2014; original claims 14-15 issued as claims 10-11. Id. at 185, 207.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`III. PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE ’558 PATENT
`The ’558 Patent is presently at issue in two parallel proceedings. First,
`
`the ’558 Patent is asserted against Real Party in Interest (“RPI”) Apple Inc. in a
`
`proceeding before the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”)
`
`captioned Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing
`
`Components Thereof, 337-TA-1065 filed July 7, 2017. And the ’558 Patent is
`
`asserted against Real Party in Interest Apple Inc. in a matter before the United States
`
`District Court for the Southern District of California captioned Qualcomm Inc. v.
`
`Apple Inc., 17-CV-01375 filed July 6, 2017. In the matter before the ITC, an Initial
`
`Determination and Recommended Determination was issued on September 28, 2018,
`
`finding claim 7 of the ’558 Patent valid. Ex. 2001 at 45-55. With reference to
`
`Apple’s proposed combination of Chu, Choi 2010 and Myers, the ITC determined
`
`that “Apple has failed to show clearly and convincingly that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Chu and Choi 2010
`
`or Choi Thesis with Myers to achieve the selective boost feature of the ’558 Patent,”
`
`and therefore “claim 7 of the ’558 Patent is not invalid as obvious based on Chu in
`
`combination with Choi 2010 or Choi thesis in view of Myers.” Id. at 54.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE CITED REFERENCES
`A. Overview of Chu
`The Chu reference is an article entitled, “A 10 MHz Bandwidth, 2mV Ripple
`
`PA Regulator for CDMA Transmitters.” Ex. 1304 (Chu), Title. Chu describes a
`
`“combined class A-B and switch-mode regulator based supply modulator with a
`
`master-slave architecture achieving wide bandwidth and low ripple.” Ex. 1304, at
`
`2809. Chu’s master-slave architecture is illustrated in Fig. 4 (below) showing a
`
`supply modulator with switch-mode and linear amplifiers connected in parallel.
`
`Chu’s Fig. 5 (below) illustrates a simplified block diagram of the proposed
`
`regulator and ripple cancellation.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Chu discloses that a “high GBW linear amplifier in voltage follower
`
`configuration ensures that output node Vo(t) tracks the reference envelop voltage
`
`A(t).” Ex. 1304 at 2810. And a “current sensing circuit, high gain transimpedance
`
`amplifier and switch-mode regulator form[] a global feedback control loop that
`
`suppresses the current output from the linear amplifier within the switch-mode
`
`regulator bandwidth.” Id. According to Chu, “[t]ypical current sensing techniques
`
`utilize[ing] a small series resistor and measure[ing] the voltage drop across it … is
`
`not suitable for CDMA supply modulator applications where output currents can be
`
`up to 380 mA.” Id. at 2815-2816. Accordingly, Chu discloses an “accurate current
`
`sensing circuit” illustrated in Chu’s Fig. 16, shown below. Id.
`
`Chu does not include any discussion or illustration of a voltage boost
`
`mechanism for boosting a battery voltage.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`B. Overview of Choi 2010
`The Choi 2010 reference is an article entitled, “Envelope Tracking Power
`
`Amplifier Robust to Battery Depletion.” Ex. 1306, Title. Choi 2010 describes a
`
`“hybrid switching amplifier.” Fig. 2 illustrates how a PA supply modulator topology
`
`affects the output power of the PA as shown below:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1306, 1334.
`
`Choi 2010 discloses a system that boosts the supply voltage of a linear
`
`amplifier to 5V, regardless of the battery voltage variation, by coupling a 5V boost
`
`converter to the supply of the linear amplifier as illustrated in Choi 2010’s Fig. 5
`
`below. Id. at 1333. Choi 2010’s system boosts the linear amplifier supply voltage,
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`“while that of the buck converter is still coupled to the battery in the HSA” so that
`
`“the supply modulator dynamically regulates the PA with peak voltage of 4.5V.” Id.
`
`
`
`Thus, Choi 2010 teaches that this system always boosts the battery voltage to
`
`5V, regardless of battery voltage fluctuation in order to provide a stable supply
`
`voltage to the RF PA. Id. at 1334. Choi 2010 recognizes that this continuous voltage
`
`boost degrades efficiency of the supply, but accepts this degradation as an acceptable
`
`compromise to achieve a stable supply voltage for the RF PA. Id. at 1335 (“the
`
`efficiency degradation by the additional boost converter is not serious because the
`
`load current provided by the linear amplifier is about 30% of the overall load
`
`current”).
`
`It is notable that four of the six authors of Choi 2010 were also authors of the
`
`Kim paper that was considered by the Examiner and distinguished during the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`prosecution of the ’558 Patent, and Choi 2010 was also considered by the Examiner
`
`during prosecution. Ex. 1313 at 255; Ex. 1306, 1332; Ex. 1301, Cover.
`
`C. Overview of Myers
`Myers is a U.S. Patent titled “Method and Apparatus for High Efficiency High
`
`Dynamic Range Power Amplification.” Ex. 1312, Title. Myers discloses an
`
`envelope elimination and restoration (EER) amplifier, which is “a technique through
`
`which highly efficient but nonlinear radio frequency (RF) power amplifiers can be
`
`combined with other, highly efficient amplifiers to produce a high efficiency linear
`
`amplifier system.” Ex. 1312, 1:23-29. In Myers’ system, a signal to be amplified is
`
`split into two paths, an amplitude path and a phase path. Id. at 1:29-31. An envelope
`
`is detected and amplified in the amplitude path by a class S or other power amplifier,
`
`which operates on the bandwidth of the RF envelope rather than the RF bandwidth.
`
`Id. at 1:31-34. The phase component in the phase path is then amplitude modulated
`
`by the amplified envelope signal, creating an amplified replica of the input signal Id.
`
`at 1:34-37. Myers explains that in an EER amplifier, the dynamic range is limited
`
`by the range of the class S modulator used to amplify the envelope, thus Myers
`
`discloses another type of EER amplifier with a higher dynamic range. Id. at 1:37-
`
`40, 55-57. Myers’ Fig. 8 illustrates a flow chart for amplifying a signal:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Myers’ flowchart shows in step 820 that if the input is found to be less than
`
`the reference signal, Myers describes proceeding to step 830, in which a first power
`
`source is selected for use in a pulsewidth modulator. Ex. 1312, 9:26-30. But if the
`
`input is greater than the reference, Myers’ process proceeds to step 840, in which a
`
`second power source, greater than the first power source, is selected for use with a
`
`pulsewidth modulator. Id. at 9:29-32. Myers does not, however, disclose or suggest
`
`a boost converter or a boosted voltage, and Myers’ two different power sources are
`
`never applied to a linear amplifier in a hybrid structure, but rather Myers describes
`
`using pulsewidth modulators as part of a class S modulator (i.e. a “switcher”)
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`implementation—not a linear amplifier. Id. at 1:62-67, 4:17-20, 6:1-5. Myers’ pulse
`
`width modulators are depicted in Figures 2 and 3 copied below:
`
`
`
`Myers’ pulse width modulator “outputs a pulsewidth modulated waveform
`
`which has a duty cycle proportional to the amplitude of the envelope signal.” Ex.
`
`1312, 3:63-65. As Myers illustrates, a driver “accepts the pulsewidth modulated
`
`signal from PWM” and “drives switching transistor” and “logic gates.” Id. at 3:66-
`
`4:1. Myers, however, does not employ PMOS transistors to receive a selectable
`
`power source. Although Myers discloses an embodiment that includes “a common
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`switching transistor coupled to ground,” as shown in Fig. 2 above, Myers never
`
`discloses an embodiment in which two different supplies, Vdd1 and Vdd2, are
`
`selectably received by the same switching transistor. Id. at 7:12-24, Fig. 2. Rather,
`
`Myers explains that “having two separate pairs of switching transistors [illustrated
`
`in Fig. 3] further increases efficiency.” Id.
`
`D. Overview of Hanington
`Hanington is an IEEE article entitled “High-Efficiency Power Amplifier
`
`Using Dynamic Power-Supply Voltage for CDMA Applications.” Ex. 1325 at 1471.
`
`The Hanington article addresses the efficiency and linearity of microwave power
`
`amplifiers for mobile communication systems, and particularly “improvements in
`
`system efficiency that are obtainable when a dc-dc converter is used to convert
`
`available battery voltage to an optimal supply voltage for the output RF amplifier.”
`
`Id.
`
`Fig. 4 of the Hanington article (reproduced below) shows an RF amplifier
`
`configuration that is described as “a high-efficiency power amplifier topology for
`
`use in a portable microwave communications system.” Id. The illustrated RF
`
`amplifier configuration uses “a boost dc-dc converter… to provide the supply
`
`voltage to a MESFET power amplifier. Id.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`A diagram of a “boost or ringing-choke converter” used in Hanington’s RF
`
`amplifier configuration is shown in Fig. 5, reproduced below. Id. at 1473. In the
`
`illustrated dc-dc boost converter, “energy is stored in a magnetic field during the on-
`
`time of the switch,” and “[d]uring the off-time, this energy is released and used to
`
`charge the output capacitor to the peak of the ring voltage and provide energy to the
`
`load.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`With reference to the dc-dc boost converter shown in Fig. 5, the Hanington
`
`article explains that “[t]he power switch is the heart of the dc-dc converter.” Id. And
`
`particularly that, “[i]n this study, AlGaAs/GaAs heterojunction bipolar transistors
`
`(HBT’s) were used due to their ability to provide extremely fast switching at
`
`moderate power.” Id. Hanington concludes that “[b]oost regulators of this topology
`
`have efficiency largely limited by the voltage drops across their semiconducting
`
`elements,” and that “[w]ith HBT power transistors, the ac loss is very small due to
`
`the fast rise and fall times.” Id. at 1473-74.
`
`V. GROUND I OF THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED
`BECAUSE IT IS CUMULATIVE OF PRIOR ART APPLIED BY
`THE PATENT OFFICE DURING PROSECUTION
`Ground I of the Petition argues that independent claim 10 is obvious over the
`
`combination of Chu, Choi 2010 and Hanington.1 But, as demonstrated below, the
`
`Petitioner’s proposed combination of Chu and Choi 2010 is nearly identical to the
`
`envelope tracking power amplifier circuit disclosed in the Kim reference (Ex. 1313),
`
`which the Patent Office specifically addressed in its allowance of claim 10.
`
`Moreover, the Petitioner has not even attempted to demonstrate that its proposed
`
`combination of Chu and Choi 2010 is somehow non-cumulative of the Kim
`
`reference. The Board should therefore exercise its discretion to deny institution of
`
`
`1 The Hanington reference is included in Ground I of the Petition for the
`limited purpose of showing a boost converter structure. See Petition 54-57.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Ground I under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the obviousness argument set forth in
`
`the Petition is cumulative of prior art considered during examination. See, e.g., Neil
`
`Ziegmann, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens, IPR2015-01860, Paper 13 at 8-9 (P.T.A.B. Sept.
`
`6, 2017) (affirming denial of institution under § 325(d), “We conclude that a set of
`
`prior art or arguments may be considered “substantially the same” if they are
`
`“cumulative to or substantially overlap with issues previously considered by the
`
`Office with respect to the patent.”); see also id. at 10 (where a prior art reference
`
`presented in a petition was already considered substantively by the Examiner, “the
`
`petitioner has the initial burden to identify such errors made by the examiner with
`
`respect to that prior art reference,” and factual findings made by the Examiner and
`
`“not contested by the petitioner may be treated as undisputed fact for the purpose of
`
`evaluating petitioner’s assertions concerning examiner error under [§] 325(d).”)
`
`Ground I of the Petition proposes a combination in which the “regulator”
`
`shown in Figure 5 of Choi 2010 would be used to boost the supply voltage to the
`
`“high GBW [gain-bandwidth] linear amplifier” shown in Figure 4 of Chu. See
`
`Petition at 51-54. The Petition demonstrates this proposed combination in the
`
`highlighted drawings copied below, in which Choi’s regulator is highlighted in light
`
`blue (in the diagram on the right), and Chu’s linear amplifier is highlighted in purple
`
`(in the diagram on the left).
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground I of the Petition further relies on a highlighted version of Chu’s Figure 14,
`
`copied below, which shows transistor-level details of the linear amplifier from
`
`Figure 4. As shown below, the linear amplifer in Chu’s Figure 14 (also highlighted
`
`in purple) includes an input stage, a biasing stage, and an output stage.
`
`
`
`As detailed above at Section II.B, the Examiner applied the Kim reference
`
`during prosecution of the ’558 Patent to reject claims 1, 2, 6-17, 19-21, and 24-26.
`
`Dependent claims 4, 5, 18, 22 and 23 were deemed allowable over Kim.
`
`Independent claim 14 was amended to incorporate the subject matter of allowable
`
`claim 4, and was subsequently allowed over Kim and issued as claim 10. The Patent
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Office thus allowed claim 10 of the ’558 Patent only after specific consideration of
`
`the Kim reference. Figures 3 and 4 of the Kim reference are copied below.
`
`Kim’s Figure 3 depicts a hybrid switching supply modulator with a boost
`
`converter. Figure 4 provides a transistor-level diagram of the wideband linear
`
`amplifier from Figure 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`A comparison between Figures 3 and 4 of Kim and the disclosures of the cited
`
`Chu and Choi references easily demonstrates that Kim is almost identical to the
`
`Petitioner’s proposed Chu/Choi combination. To help illustrate the correspondence
`
`between the teachings of Kim and the Petitioner’s proposed Chu/Choi combination,
`
`Figures 3 and 4 of Kim have been highlighted in the following discussion in the
`
`same manner used by the Petitioner to highlight Figure 5 of Choi and Figures 4 and
`
`11 of Chu.
`
`First, Figure 5 of Choi (as highlighted by the Petitioner) is set forth below next
`
`to a similarly highlighted version of Kim’s Figure 3. It is evident from these
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`diagrams that Choi and Kim both include a linear amplifier (highlighted in purple)
`
`that receives a supply voltage from a voltage regulator (highlighted in light blue) to
`
`provide a modulated supply voltage to an RF power amplifier (highlighted in red).2
`
`See also, Ex. 1313 (Kim) at 255 (“To improve the performance of power amplifier,
`
`a boost converter is added to the supply modulator as shown in Fig. 3. By boosting
`
`the supply voltage of the linear amplifier from 3.4V to 5V, the output voltage of the
`
`supply modulator is increased up to 4.5V and the power amplifier shows higher gain,
`
`efficiency, output power and wider bandwidth.”)
`
`Next, Figure 4 of Chu (as highlighted by the Petitioner) is set forth below
`
`alongside a similarly highlighted version of Kim’s Figure 4. The Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`
`2 Choi’s buck converter (highlighted in yellow) and inductor (highlighted in
`pink) are not relevant to claim 10 of the ‘558 patent.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`highlighted version of Figure 4 shows that Chu’s high bandwidth linear amplifier
`
`(highlighted in purple) includes an OTA (circled in red), a class-AB biasing stage
`
`(circled in blue), and an output stage (output transistors circled in orange and pink).
`
`Likewise, Figure 4 of Kim depicts the identical circuit, including an OTA (circled
`
`in red), a class-AB biasing stage (circled in blue), and an output stage (output
`
`transistors circled in orange and pink.) See also, Ex. 1313 (Kim) at 256 (“As shown
`
`in Fig. 4, we use folded-cascode OTA as a gain stage to achieve a large bandwidth
`
`and high DC gain. For large current driving capability and rail-to-rail operation, the
`
`output buffer has a common source configuration and it is biased as class-AB for
`
`linearity and efficiency.”)
`
`
`
`The equivalence between the linear amplifier designs in Kim and Chu is
`
`further evident by comparing Figure 14 of Chu with Kim’s Figure 4. As shown
`
`below, both include an identical input stage (circled in red in Kim’s Figure 4), a
`
`class-AB biasing stage (circled in blue in Kim), and an output stage with a
`
`PMOS/NMOS transistor pair (circled in orange and pink).
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As demonstrated above, there is no question that the Petitioner’s proposed
`
`combination of Chu and Choi, as set forth in Ground I of the Petition, is cumulative
`
`of the Kim reference applied during prosecution. The Petitioner may be unsatisfied
`
`with the conclusion of the Patent Office that claim 10 is patentable over Kim, but
`
`asking the Board to reconsider the equivalent of this same prior art in inter partes
`
`review is precisely the kind of duplication of effort and waste of judicial resources
`
`that the PTAB has consistently avoided.
`
`In evaluating whether to deny institution on the basis of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d),
`
`the Board considers the following list of factors set forth in Becton Dickinson & Co.
`
`v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17-18 (PTAB Dec. 15,
`
`2017)(informative):
`
`1. the similarities and material differences between the asserted
`art and the prior art involved during examination;
`2. the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art
`evaluated during examination;
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`3. the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during
`examination;
`4. the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during
`examination and the manner in which a petitioner relies on the prior
`art or a patent owner distinguishes the prior art;
`5. whether a petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the
`Office erred in evaluating the asserted prior art; and
`6. the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in
`the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments.
`
`The Becton Dickinson factors support denying institution. As demonstrated
`
`above, the Kim reference that the Examiner evaluated and applied during
`
`examination is nearly identical to the Petitioner’s proposed combination of Chu and
`
`Choi. The only difference being the Petitioner’s inclusion of the Hanington
`
`reference for the limited purpose of showing a boost converter structure, which was
`
`not part of the Examiner’s basis for allowing claim 10. Factors 1-4 therefore weigh
`
`strongly in favor of non-institution. As to factors 5 and 6, the Petitioner, despite
`
`having the burden of proof, has made no attempt to demonstrate any error by the
`
`Patent Office or any other reason why reconsideration might be warranted. Factors
`
`5 and 6 should therefore also be weighed in favor of the Patent Owner.
`
`For at least these reasons, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny
`
`institution of Ground I under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`VI. GROUND II SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE PETITIONER
`HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A MOTIVATION TO
`COMBINE MYERS WITH CHU OR CHOI 2010
`Ground II of the Petition should be denied because Petitioner has failed to
`
`
`
`show a motivation to combine Myers with either Chu or Choi 2010. The Petitioner
`
`relies on Myers for the “selective boost” element of dependent claim 11. See Paper
`
`3 at 72-77. Petitioner argues that when combined with Myers, Chu’s envelope
`
`amplifier would be able to operate selectively by choosing a power source – either a
`
`boosted power source generated by Choi’s boost converter, or Chu’s battery voltage.
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`The Petition proposes that the POSA would have combined Myers with Chu
`
`and Choi 2010 because the references “are from the same field of endeavor (power
`
`supply modulators for power amplifiers)” and because the POSA would have
`
`understood that choosing a power source based on the amplitude of the input signal
`
`is a “common-sense notion.” See Petition at pp. 77-79. The Board has consistently
`
`held, however, that this type of non-specific, general, “hand waving” motivation to
`
`combine analysis is not sufficient to satisfy the Petitioner’s burden of establishing
`
`obviousness. See, e.g., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Red Rock Analytics, LLC,
`
`IPR2018-00555, Paper 16 at 22 (PTAB, August 30, 2018)(“[m]erely asserting that
`
`these prior art references are directed to the same art or same techniques, however,
`
`does not suffice as an articulated reasons with rational underpinning to combine their
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`respective teachings – more is required to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness”); see also, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (“references to “common sense”—whether to supply a motivation to
`
`combine or a missing limitation—cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for
`
`reasoned analysis and evidentiary support.) Petitioner’s reasoning seems to say no
`
`more than a skilled artisan, once presented with the two references, would have
`
`understood that they could be combined. As the Federal Circuit regularly concludes,
`
`that is not enough: it does not imply a motivation to pick out those two references
`
`and combine them to arrive at the claimed invention. See Pers. Web Techs., LLC v.
`
`Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993–94 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Belden Inc. v. Berk–Tek
`
`LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled
`
`artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the
`
`combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”))
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s conclusory motivation to combine analysis ignores substantial
`
`differences between the technologies disclosed in Myers, Chu, and Choi. As
`
`detailed above, the Petitioner’s proposed Chu/Choi combination provides an
`
`envelope tracking power amplifier in which Chu’s linear amplifier is modified to
`
`utilize a boosted voltage from Choi’s voltage regulator. Myers, on the other hand,
`
`does not disclose a linear amplifier or a boosted voltage.
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`Diagrams from the petition illustrating the Petitioner’s proposed Chu/Choi
`
`combination are copied below. As shown, Chu and Choi both include a linear
`
`amplifier (highlighted in light purple) that receives and amplifies an envelope signal
`
`(highlighted in dark purple.) The Petitioner proposes that the POSA would have
`
`utilized Choi’s voltage regulator (highlighted in light blue) to provide a boosted
`
`voltage to the linear amplifier of Chu.
`
`
`
`
`
`Unlike the Petitioner’s proposed Chu/Choi combination shown above, Myers
`
`does not utilize a linear amplifier. Instead, Myers teaches an envelope elimination
`
`and restoration (EER) circuit that uses a multi-range modulator to amplify an
`
`envelope signal to an RF power amplifier. As shown, for example, in Figs. 1 and 2
`
`of Myers (copied below), the m
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
