`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Chang Ki Kwon et al.
`In re Patent of:
`8,063,674
`U.S. Patent No.:
`November 22, 2011
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 12/365,559
`Filing Date:
`February 4, 2009
`Title:
`Multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT W. HORST, PH.D.
`
`I, Robert W. Horst, Ph.D., of San Jose, CA, declare that:
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications and Background Information
`
`
`
`I am currently an Adjunct Research Professor in the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering the University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
`
`paign and am also an independent consultant at HT Consulting. I am an independ-
`
`ent consultant with more than 30 years of expertise in the design and architecture
`
`of computer systems. I have testified as an expert witness and consultant in patent
`
`and intellectual property litigation as well as inter partes reviews and re-examina-
`
`tion proceedings. My curriculum vitae is provided as APPLE-1004.
`
`
`
`I earned my M.S. (1978) in electrical engineering and Ph.D. (1991) in
`
`computer science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign after earn-
`
`ing my B.S. (1975) in electrical engineering from Bradley University. During my
`
`master’s program, I designed, constructed and debugged a shared memory parallel
`
`
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`microprocessor system. During my doctoral program, I designed and simulated a
`
`massively parallel, multi-threaded task flow computer.
`
`
`
`After receiving my bachelor’s degree and while pursuing my master’s
`
`degree, I worked for Hewlett-Packard Co. While at Hewlett-Packard, I designed
`
`the micro-sequencer and cache of the HP3000 Series 64 processor. From 1980 to
`
`1999, I worked at Tandem Computers, which was acquired by Compaq Computers
`
`in 1997. While at Tandem, I was a designer and architect of several generations of
`
`fault-tolerant computer systems and was the principal architect of the NonStop Cy-
`
`clone superscalar processor. The system development work at Tandem also in-
`
`cluded development of the ServerNet System Area Network and applications of
`
`this network to fault tolerant systems and clusters of database servers.
`
`
`
`Since leaving Compaq in 1999, I have worked with several technol-
`
`ogy companies, including 3Ware, Network Appliance, Tibion, and AlterG in the
`
`areas of network-attached storage and biomedical devices. From 2012 to 2015, I
`
`was Chief Technology Officer of Robotics at AlterG, Inc., where I worked on the
`
`design of anti-gravity treadmills and battery-powered orthotic devices to assist
`
`those with impaired mobility.
`
`
`
`In 2001, I was elected an IEEE Fellow “for contributions to the archi-
`
`tecture and design of fault tolerant systems and networks.” I have authored over
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`30 publications, have worked with patent attorneys on numerous patent applica-
`
`tions, and I am a named inventor on 82 issued U.S. patents.
`
` My patents include those directed to computer systems with multiple
`
`supply voltages including U.S. Pat. No. 6,496,940 (Multiple processor system with
`
`standby sparing) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,193,175 (Fault-tolerant computer with three
`
`independently clocked processors asynchronously executing identical code that are
`
`synchronized upon each voted access to two memory modules). My patents also
`
`include aspects of circuit design including U.S. Pat. No 5,034,964 (N:1 time-volt-
`
`age matrix encoded I/O transmission system) and U.S. Pat. No. 9,893,604 (Circuit
`
`with low DC bias storage capacitors for high density power conversion).
`
`
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have considered the following: my own
`
`knowledge and experience, including my work experience in the fields of com-
`
`puter systems and circuit design and my experience in working with others in-
`
`volved in those fields. In addition, I have analyzed the following publications and
`
`materials, in addition to other materials I cite in my declaration:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 (APPLE-1001), and its accompanying
`
`prosecution history (APPLE-1002)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,279,943 to Ulrich Steinaker (“Steinaker”) (APPLE-
`
`1005)
`
`• U. S. Patent No. 4,717,836 to James Doyle (”Doyle”) (APPLE-1006)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`• J. C. Park and V. J. Mooney III, “Sleepy Stack Leakage Reduction,”
`
`14 IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI)
`
`Systems 11, pp. 1250-1263 (Nov. 2006) (“Park”) (APPLE-1007)
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0163364 to Sylvain Majcherczak
`
`(“Majcherczak”) (APPLE-1008)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,646,844 to Lloyd P. Matthews (“Matthews”)
`
`(APPLE-1009)
`
`• G. W. Griffiths, “A Review of Semiconductor Packaging and Its Role
`
`in Electronics Manufacturing,” 8th IEEE/CHMT International
`
`Conference on Electronic Manufacturing Technology Symposium
`
`(1990) (APPLE-1010)
`
`• Wang-Chang Albert Gu, “RF Front-End Modules in Cellular
`
`Handsets,” 2004 IEEE Compound Semiconductor Integrated Circuit
`
`Symposium (Feb. 2005) (APPLE-1011)
`
`• Roy, K, S Mukhopadhyay, and H Mahmoodi Meimand, “Leakage
`
`current mechanisms and leakage reduction techniques in deep-
`
`submicrometer CMOS circuits,” 91 Proceedings of the IEEE 2, pp.
`
`305-327 (Apr. 2003) (“Roy”) (APPLE-1012)
`
`• Y. Ye, S. Borkar and V. De, “A new technique for standby leakage
`
`reduction in high-performance circuits,” 1998 Symposium on VLSI
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Circuits. Digest of Technical Papers (Cat. No.98CH36215), Honolulu,
`
`HI, USA, 1998, pp. 40-41 (“Borkar”) (APPLE-1013)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,049,865 to Parker et al. (“Parker”) (APPLE-1014)
`
`• Qadeer A. Khan et al., “A Sequence Independent Power-on-Reset
`
`Circuit for Multi-Voltage Systems,” 2006 IEEE International
`
`Symposium on Circuits and Systems (Sep. 2006) (APPLE-1015)
`
`II. Legal Principles
`
`
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I have applied
`
`the legal principles described in the following paragraphs.
`
`A. Legal Standards for Prior Art
`
`
`
`I am not an attorney. My understanding of the legal standards
`
`throughout this section are based on discussion with Counsel and my experience in
`
`prior patent cases.
`
`
`
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to an as-
`
`serted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is prior to the effective filing date
`
`of the asserted patent. I further understand from Counsel that a printed publication,
`
`such as an article published in a journal, magazine, or trade publication, qualifies
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`as prior art to an asserted patent if the date of publication is prior to the effective
`
`filing date of the asserted patent.
`
`
`
`I further understand that a U.S. patent can qualify as prior art to the
`
`asserted patent if the application for that patent was filed in the United States be-
`
`fore the effective filing date of the asserted patent.
`
` Counsel has informed me that certain exceptions can apply to disqual-
`
`ify a reference as prior art, but for the purpose of my analysis in this declaration, I
`
`have assumed that the standards discussed above for assessing prior art eligibility
`
`apply.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`
`
`I understand that patents or printed publications that qualify as prior
`
`art can be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`
`
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly con-
`
`strued, the second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim requires a
`
`comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a limita-
`
`tion-by-limitation basis.
`
`
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim,
`
`and thus renders the claim invalid, if all limitations of the claim are disclosed in
`
`that prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I understand that anticipation in an inter partes review must be proven
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`
`
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if
`
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a POSITA.
`
`
`
`I understand that a POSITA provides a reference point from which the
`
`prior art and claimed invention should be viewed. This reference point is applied
`
`instead of someone using his or her own insight or hindsight in deciding whether a
`
`claim is obvious.
`
`
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the con-
`
`sideration of various factors such as: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2)
`
`the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of ordi-
`
`nary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations
`
`such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a combi-
`
`nation of multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art references
`
`themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine, but other
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`times the linkage between two or more prior art references is common sense. I fur-
`
`ther understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that market demand, rather
`
`than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a motivation to combine
`
`references may be supplied by the direction of the marketplace.
`
`
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device,
`
`and a POSITA would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
`
`her skill.
`
`
`
`I also understand that practical and common sense considerations
`
`should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have obvi-
`
`ous uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a POSITA look-
`
`ing to overcome a problem through invention will often be able to fit together the
`
`teachings of multiple publications. I understand that obviousness analysis there-
`
`fore takes into account the inferences and creative steps that a POSITA would em-
`
`ploy under the circumstances.
`
`
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious
`
`merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a POSITA has good reason to pursue
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`the known options within his or her technical grasp because the result is likely the
`
`product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
` The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. When a
`
`work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market
`
`forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a
`
`POSITA can implement a predictable variation, the patent claim is likely obvious.
`
`
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis fo-
`
`cuses on what was known or obvious to a POSITA, not just the patentee. Accord-
`
`ingly, I understand that any need or problem known to those of ordinary skill in the
`
`field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common
`
`sense of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`I understand that secondary indicia of non-obviousness may include
`
`(1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the invention of
`
`the patent; (2) commercial success of processes covered by the patent; (3) unex-
`
`pected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise of the invention by others
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention; (7) failure of others to find a solution to the long felt
`
`need; and (8) skepticism by experts. I understand that evidence of secondary indi-
`
`cia of non-obviousness, if available, should be considered as part of the obvious-
`
`ness analysis.
`
`
`
`I also understand that there must be a relationship between any such
`
`secondary considerations and the invention. I further understand that contempora-
`
`neous and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration supporting
`
`an obviousness determination.
`
`
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly com-
`
`bined where a POSITA having the understanding and knowledge reflected in the
`
`prior art and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would have
`
`been led to make the combination of elements recited in the claims. Under this
`
`analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or problem known in the
`
`field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a reason for combining
`
`the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed manner.
`
`
`
`I understand that obviousness in an inter partes review must be
`
`proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`III. Background Knowledge One of Skill in the Art Would Have Had Prior
`To the Priority Date of the ’674 Patent
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
` The technology in the ’674 Patent at issue generally relates to the de-
`
`sign of power up/down circuits for semiconductor devices with multiple power
`
`supplies. APPLE-1001, 1:6-8. Prior to the priority date of the ’674 Patent, there
`
`existed numerous products, publications, and patents that implemented or de-
`
`scribed the functionality claimed in the ’674 Patent—some of which are detailed
`
`below. The patent specification and figures of the ’674 Patent include CMOS cir-
`
`cuits, flowcharts and block diagrams. The figures and specification describe
`
`CMOS circuits, but do not, for example, include any guidance on certain key pa-
`
`rameters of the transistors (e.g., threshold voltages and drain-source impedance) re-
`
`quired to make the circuits operational. Hence a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have needed a high enough degree of experience and training in circuits and
`
`systems to determine these and other missing implementation details.
`
` Thus, based on the foregoing and upon my experience in this area, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in this field at and around the February 4, 2009
`
`filing date of the ’674 Patent (hereinafter “POSITA”) would have had at least an
`
`undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, and three years of
`
`experience in circuit and system design. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill
`
`with less than the amount of experience noted above could have had a correspond-
`
`ingly greater amount of educational training such a graduate degree in a related
`
`field.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
` Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the capabil-
`
`ities of a POSITA. Indeed, I have participated in organizations and worked closely
`
`with many such persons over the course of my career.
`
`
`
`I am well qualified in the design of circuits and systems related to
`
`the ’674 Patent and I was a person of at least ordinary skill in the art in the ’674
`
`timeframe.
`
`IV. State of the Art and Overview of Technology at Issue
`
`A. Circuit Design
`
` The ’674 Patent and related prior art include circuit diagrams pre-
`
`sented at both the gate level (e.g., AND, NAND, OR, NOR and inverters) and indi-
`
`vidual transistor level. The gate-level diagrams use standard notation for gates and
`
`use bubbles to indicate signal inversion.
`
` The circuit-level diagrams across the various references to which I
`
`cite use a variety of different conventions to draw transistors. For the art cited in
`
`this report, the transistors are primarily enhancement mode Metal Oxide Semicon-
`
`ductor Field Effect Transistors (MOSFETs). Below I have shown some of the dif-
`
`ferent ways of drawing these transistors:
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` When used in switching circuits, P-channel and N-channel transistors
`
`can generally be analyzed as if they are ideal switches, with the P channels con-
`
`ducting when the gate (G) is negative relative to the source (S), and the N channels
`
`conducting when gate is positive relative to the source. Many circuits include a
`
`mix of N-channel and P-channel transistors, often configured as standard CMOS
`
`(complementary metal-oxide semiconductor) logic circuits. For instance, a CMOS
`
`inverter has N-channel and P-channel transistors with both gates connected to the
`
`input, the source terminals to voltage rails (ground and the positive voltage), and
`
`the drains connected together and to the output. This is illustrated in FIG. 2A of
`
`Doyle, which describes this as “the basic well-known CMOS inverter structure.”
`
`APPLE-1006, 4:3-6.
`
`
`
`P-Channel
`MOSFETs
`
`G
`
`S
`
`G
`
`S
`
`G
`
`S
`
`G
`
`S
`
`G
`
`S
`
`G
`
`D
` Park,
`Steinacker
`D
`
`G
`
`N-Channel
`MOSFETs
`
`D
`Doyle,
`Majcherczak
`D
`
`G
`
`G
`
`S
`
`S
`
`D
`D
`D
`------------------- Other -------------------
`
`G
`
`D
`
`S
`
`G
`
`D
`
`S
`
`G
`
`D
`
`S
`
`D
`
`D
`
`S
`
`S
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 2A of Doyle
`
` The transistors in the ’674 Patent circuits are used for more than just
`
`logic circuits. The characteristics of these transistors dictate voltage detection lev-
`
`els and the amount of sub-threshold leakage of the circuits described in the ’674
`
`Patent, requiring a deeper understanding of the transistor parameters. For example,
`
`the MOSFET threshold voltage, usually abbreviated Vth, determines the voltage
`
`level at which the transistor is switched on and can conduct current. When FETs
`
`are used for voltage level detection, as in the ’674 Patent, the detected voltage is
`
`directly influenced by the Vth of the selected transistors.
`
` When a MOSFET switches on, it acts like a resistor, but depending on
`
`the way it is constructed, the resistance can vary from a few milliohms to several
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`thousand ohms. A transistor’s impedance or resistance—abbreviated Rdson or just
`
`Ron—determines the current that can be conducted through the transistor and deter-
`
`mines the voltage drop and power loss. Moreover, the Ron of the transistors deter-
`
`mines how currents are shared when transistors are connected in parallel, such as
`
`the feedback transistors in the ’674 Patent circuits.
`
` The ’674 Patent does not specify Vth or Ron for the transistors in the
`
`circuits in the drawings and specification. The fact that the ’674 Patent does not
`
`give guidance in the selection of these key parameters indicates that a POSITA
`
`should be assumed to have sufficient skill in circuit design to understand and mod-
`
`ify circuits in a way that a POSITA would be able to select the appropriate parame-
`
`ters, or to construct stacks of transistors to obtain the desired and useful power de-
`
`tection functionality described in the ’674 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Leakage
`
` The term “leakage” generally refers to unwanted current that flows
`
`when the switching elements are nominally off. Leakage increases power dissipa-
`
`tion and drains the battery in portable devices, thus reduction in leakage is highly
`
`desirable.
`
` The causes of leakage include “subthreshold leakage” and “gate-oxide
`
`leakage”. Subthreshold leakage is the current that flows in transistors that are
`
`nominally switched off:
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`One of the main reasons causing the leakage power increase is the
`
`increase of subthreshold leakage power. When technology feature size
`
`scales down, supply voltage and threshold voltage also scale down.
`
`Subthreshold leakage power increases exponentially as threshold
`
`voltage decreases. Furthermore, the structure of the short channel
`
`device decreases the threshold voltage even lower.
`
`APPLE-1007, p. 1 (emphasis added).
`
` Gate-oxide leakage is determined by process parameters:
`
`In addition to subthreshold leakage, another contributor to leakage
`
`power is gate-oxide leakage power due to the tunneling current
`
`through the gate-oxide insulator. Since gate-oxide thickness may
`
`reduce as the channel length decreases, in sub 0.1- µm technology,
`
`gate-oxide leakage power may be comparable to subthreshold leakage
`
`power if not handled properly
`
`Id. (emphasis added).
`
` The ’674 Patent discusses “leakage” but does not distinguish between
`
`the different types of leakage. A POSITA would understand that it is referring to
`
`subthreshold leakage because circuit design techniques do not have an effect on
`
`gate-oxide leakage.
`
` Subthreshold leakage can be decreased by circuit design techniques
`
`that drive the gate voltage farther from the threshold. The following figure from
`
`Roy shows that driving the gate voltage lower in an NMOS transistor can reduce
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`the leakage current (ID) by orders of magnitude. Each tick mark on the vertical
`
`axis is a power of 10 reduction in leakage.
`
`
`
`Roy, page 305
`
`
`
` The sub-threshold leakage can be reduced by driving the gate voltage
`
`further from the threshold by circuit design techniques. Using stacked transistors
`
`reduces the sub-threshold leakage because, in the case of NMOS transistor, one of
`
`the series transistors has a higher source voltage, making its gate voltage negative
`
`with respect to its source. The use of stacked transistors to reduce leakage current
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`was well known before the priority date of the ’674 Patent as described in Borkar
`
`(1998), Roy (2003) and Park (2006). See generally APPLE-1007; APPLE-1012;
`
`APPLE-1013. The use of stacked transistors for leakage reduction is included in
`
`some of the circuits of the ’674 Patent.
`
`C.
`
`Processor I/O and Core Voltages and Reset Circuits
`
` Processors are generally designed with multiple different voltage lev-
`
`els. For instance, the processor core is typically set to a low voltage, often around
`
`1V, to minimize power dissipation, while I/O interfaces are typically set to a stand-
`
`ard voltage such as 3.3 or 5 V to support interoperability with other components
`
`supporting those standards. After applying power to a system, there is a period of
`
`time before voltages have stabilized and processors are prevented from executing
`
`code until the operating voltages are known to be good. A reset signal delays exe-
`
`cution until the voltages are known to be good. The name of this signal varies (e.g.
`
`RESET, power-on-reset (POR), power-on-control (POC), or CORE-OFF). The re-
`
`set signal is sometimes active low, meaning that the reset occurs when the signal is
`
`at ground potential. Active low signals are often indicated with an overbar or suf-
`
`fix. The ’674 Patent uses an active high reset signal called PON. Steinaker’s reset
`
`signal is the output of Voltage Level Detector 5. Majcherczak names the active
`
`low reset signal CORE-OFF/n.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In systems with multiple voltages, the sequences of applying the dif-
`
`ferent voltages may be carefully controlled or the voltages may become valid at
`
`any time. Khan describes techniques for generating reset signals in multi-voltage
`
`systems:
`
`Khan drawing of a multi-voltage power-on sequence.
`
`
`
` While Khan describes circuits that delays reset until all voltages are
`
`valid, the ’674 Patent uses a simpler circuit that depends on a valid I/O voltage in
`
`order to detect the level of the core voltage.
`
`D. Hysteresis
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
` The term “hysteresis” is used in electronics to refer to circuits that
`
`have different voltage thresholds when detecting rising voltages than falling volt-
`
`ages. Hysteresis is desirable for reliably detecting voltage transitions to prevent
`
`the output from oscillating rapidly when the input voltage is at or near the thresh-
`
`old. Buffers or inverters designed with hysteresis are called Schmitt triggers.
`
`When the voltage is rising, the threshold is higher than when the voltage is falling.
`
`Thus, if the input voltage lingers near the threshold, the output remains high if it
`
`had previously been high or remains low if it had previously been low.
`
` Hysteresis is especially desirable for detection of power voltages be-
`
`cause these voltages change slowly, and the processor should remain reset until the
`
`input voltage is reliably above the higher threshold. This concept is described by
`
`Doyle as follows:
`
`In order to provide good noise immunity for a logic circuit, including
`
`a CMOS logic circuit, it is sometimes desirable to provide hysteresis
`
`in the input circuitry of an integrated circuit chip.
`
`APPLE-1006, 1:60-63
`
` Steinacker describes voltage detector 5 that can take “the form of a
`
`Schmitt trigger with an inverting output . . . an inverter circuit, a comparator circuit
`
`or comparable circuits.” APPLE-1005, 4:49-55. Thus, Steinacker recognizes the
`
`advantage of introducing hysteresis in voltage detection circuits.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`tion:
`
` Majcherczak also describes the benefits of hysteresis in voltage detec-
`
`With the output stage E3, a hysteresis detection is obtained with a low
`
`threshold of switching from a state of the presence of a core power
`
`supply to a state of the absence of a core power supply, and a high
`
`threshold of switching of the detection circuit from a state of absence
`
`of the core supply to a state of presence of the core supply. In
`
`particular, if the output node Nin of the input stage is at Vdd3, then
`
`the signal IN applied to its input rises sufficiently to force the output
`
`node Nin downwards, and consequently, cut off the pull-down
`
`transistor M6. In a practical example, for integrated circuits using 0.18
`
`µ technology with a core supply voltage of 1.8 volts, the high
`
`threshold may thus be equal to 0.98 volts and the low threshold may
`
`be equal to 0.33 volts.
`
`APPLE-1008, ¶ 0038.
`
` The ’674 Patent does not discuss hysteresis or Schmitt triggers, but it
`
`does disclose feedback transistors that give the positive feedback required to alter
`
`the input threshold, and the disclosed circuits do exhibit hysteresis in the same way
`
`as the prior art. In the ’674 Patent, feedback is shown, for instance, in Fig. 3B as
`
`Feedback Network 310 and in Fig. 4 as the signal to the gate of transistor M8.
`
`V. Overview of the ’674 Patent
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
` The power-on/off-control (POC) device described in the ’674 Patent
`
`was intended for use in “newer integrated circuit devices include dual power sup-
`
`plies: one lower-voltage power supply for the internally operating or core applica-
`
`tions, and a second higher-voltage power supply for the I/O circuits and devices.”
`
`APPLE-1001, 1:22-25. The POC device described in the ’674 Patent was intended
`
`to provide more accurate communications between newer, low power circuits (i.e.,
`
`the “core network”) and the legacy, high power devices with which the core net-
`
`work interfaces (i.e., the “I/O network”). See APPLE-1001, 1:12-58.
`
` The logic high signal of the core network is a function of the lower
`
`supply voltage of the core network (e.g., 1.8 volts), whereas the logic high signal
`
`of the I/O network is a function of the high supply voltage of the I/O network (e.g.,
`
`3 volts). See id.; see also APPLE-1008, [0001]-[0004], [0040]. In order for the
`
`logic signals of the core network to be communicated to the I/O network in a man-
`
`ner that the circuits of the I/O network can properly interpret the signals (and vice
`
`versa), the logic signals of the two networks must be translated to the proper levels.
`
`See APPLE-1001, 1:26-29. Circuits called level shifters essentially shift the volt-
`
`age levels of any communications that occur between the I/O network and the core
`
`network. See APPLE-1001, 4:59-61. In effect, these level shifters translate a logic
`
`‘1’ from approximately the value of the lower supply voltage (or a function
`
`thereof) to approximately the value of the higher supply voltage (or a function
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`thereof) and vice versa. As a result, the logic signals communicated between the
`
`core network devices and the I/O network devices are translated into the appropri-
`
`ate voltage levels.
`
` However, common power-saving techniques employed in core net-
`
`works can cause the level shifters to send erroneous signals to the I/O network that
`
`can cause problems. See APPLE-1001, 1:26-40. “Powering down or power col-
`
`lapsing is a common technique used to save power when no device operations are
`
`pending or in progress.” APPLE-1001, 1:32-34. As the core network is being
`
`power collapsed, it can generate “stray currents or the like,” which are translated
`
`by the level shifters as legitimate signals and output to the I/O network. See AP-
`
`PLE-1001, 1:34-37. “The I/O devices assume that the core devices have initiated
`
`this communication, and will, therefore, transmit the erroneous signal into the ex-
`
`ternal environment.” APPLE-1001, 1:37-40. These illegitimate signals can cause
`
`costly errors within the system.
`
` Accordingly, the ’674 Patent teaches that it was known to use special
`
`circuits that monitor the power supply of the core network and notify the I/O net-
`
`work when the core network power supply is collapsed, so that the I/O network can
`
`be transitioned into a “known state” (i.e., a state in which it can ignore any stray
`
`signals that may be output by the level shifters). See APPLE-1001, 1:41-58. On
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`such type of circuit is a power up/down detector that generates a power-on/off-con-
`
`trol (POC) signal. APPLE-1001, 1:55-57. “The POC signal instructs the I/O de-
`
`vices when the core devices are shut down.” APPLE-1001, 1:57-58.
`
`
`
`In its background section, the ’674 Patent acknowledges that a “stand-
`
`ard” POC system 10 for multiple supply voltage devices was known at the time of
`
`the filing of the ’674 Patent. See APPLE-1001, 1:57-2:39. This known POC sys-
`
`tem 10 is shown in FIG. 1 to include a power-up/down detector 100, a signal am-
`
`plifier 101, and an output stage 102. See id. at FIG. 1, 1:57-62. The main differ-
`
`ence between this prior art POC system 10 and the purported invention of the ’674
`
`Patent is the addition of a feedback network 310. A comparison of FIG. 1 and
`
`FIG. 4 illuminates the addition made by the inventors of the ’674 Patent.
`
` The ’674 Patent describes that the prior art POC system 10 suffered
`
`from “leakage current between I/O power supply 104 and ground” and/or slower
`
`“switching/detecting times” (i.e., the speed with which the prior art POC system 10
`
`
`
`
`
`power up/
`down detector
`
`signal processor
`
`power up/
`down detector
`
`feedback
`network
`
`signal processor
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`detects that the core supply voltage has powered down). See APPLE-1001, 2:25-
`
`3:11. The feedback network 310 increases the current capacity when it is “on,” re-
`
`sulting in increased sensitivity. See APPLE-1001, 5:16-23. Conversely, the feed-
`
`back network 310 decreases the current capacity when it is “off,” which “will limit
`
`and reduce the amount of leakage current that may be dissipated through the power
`
`up/down detector.” See APPLE-1001, 5:29-38.
`
` Each of the three implementations of the feedback network 310 de-
`
`scribed in the ’674 Patent—corresponding to FIGS. 4, 5, and 6 of the ’674 Pa-
`
`tent—will increase and decrease the current capacity of the power up/down detec-
`
`tor. For example, in FIG. 4 (a highlighted and annotated version of which is repro-
`
`duced below), the transistor M8 is in parallel1 with the transistor M4. APPLE-
`
`
`1 The ’674 Patent uses the term “parallel” to refer to both (1) the traditional case in
`
`which two circuit components have the same potential difference (i.e., voltage)
`
`across their ends (e.g., transistor M4 is “coupled in parallel” with transistor M8 in
`
`FIG. 4 of the ’674 Patent); and (2) when a single circuit component has the same
`
`potential difference across its ends as multiple components connected in series
`
`have across the two ends of the series chain (e.g., transistors M9 and M10 are
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`1001, 6:4-5. Due to the configuration of the transistor M8, it is generally “on”
`
`when the transistor M4 is “on” and is “off” when the transistor M4 is “off” (except
`
`for a short delay during transitions in Vcore). See APPLE-1001, 6:4-28. This is be-
`
`cause the power up/down detector 306 acts as an