Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00573US2
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`John V. Hobgood, Reg. No. 61,540
`Benjamin S. Fernandez, Reg. No. 55,172
`Gregory H. Lantier, pro hac vice
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email:
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`John.Hobgood@wilmerhale.com
`
`Ben.Fernandez@wilmerhale.com
`
`Gregory.Lantier@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00573US2
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`John V. Hobgood, Reg. No. 61,540
`Benjamin S. Fernandez, Reg. No. 55,172
`Gregory H. Lantier, pro hac vice
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email:
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`John.Hobgood@wilmerhale.com
`
`Ben.Fernandez@wilmerhale.com
`
`Gregory.Lantier@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF
`“CARRIER AGGREGATION (POR 11-31) IS INCORRECT AND
`OVERLY NARROW ...................................................................................... 1
`A.
`“Carrier Aggregation” Should be Construed in
`Accordance With its Broadest Reasonable Interpretation .................... 1
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction of “Carrier
`Aggregation” is Far Narrower than the Broadest
`Reasonable Interpretation of that Term in Light of the
`Specification .......................................................................................... 2
`Petitioner’s Proposed BRI Construction Does Not Read
`Out “Aggregation” ................................................................................ 6
`III. GROUND I: PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS FAIL TO REFUTE
`THE EVIDENCE SET FORTH IN THE PETITION ..................................... 7
`A.
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s Argument (POR 37-42), Jeon
`in View of Xiong Includes First and Second Amplifier
`Stages Configured to be Independently Enabled or
`Disabled ................................................................................................. 7
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 44-46) The
`Petition Demonstrates Why a POSITA Would Have
`Combined Jeon and Xiong .................................................................. 14
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 46-48),
`Jeon in View of Xiong Discloses the Claimed Providing
`the First/Second Output RF Signals to the First/Second
`Load Circuits ....................................................................................... 16
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 48-50),
`Jeon in View of Xiong Discloses the Input RF Signal
`Employing Carrier Aggregation .......................................................... 17
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`B.
`
`IV. GROUND II: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT JEON,
`XIONG, AND YOUSSEF RENDER CLAIMS 9 AND 10 OBVIOUS ....... 19
`V. GROUND III: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT CLAIMS 1,
`17 AND 18 ARE OBVIOUS OVER JEON, XIONG AND FEASIBILITY
`STUDY .......................................................................................................... 22
`A.
`The Petition Establishes that Feasibility Study is
`Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 22
`The Petition Establishes the Reasons to Combine Jeon,
`Xiong, and Feasibility Study ............................................................... 23
`Patent Owner’s Additional Arguments are Without Merit ................. 25
`C.
`VI. GROUND IV: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT CLAIMS 9
`AND 10 ARE OBVIOUS OVER JEON, XIONG, FEASIBILITY
`STUDY AND YOUSSEF ............................................................................. 26
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In response to the clear evidence that the prior art renders each of the
`
`I.
`
`challenged claims obvious, Patent Owner adopts a bird-shot approach in its Patent
`
`Owner Response, variously arguing that the Board should adopt narrowing claim
`
`constructions, selectively read the prior art references, and apply the prior art in
`
`ways that would exclude disclosed embodiments. None of Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments has merit.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF
`“CARRIER AGGREGATION (POR 11-31) IS INCORRECT AND
`OVERLY NARROW
`Patent Owner’s first argument is that “carrier aggregation” should be
`
`construed to require “[1] simultaneous operation on multiple carriers [2] that are
`
`combined as a single virtual channel [3] to provide higher bandwidth.” The Board
`
`should reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`A.
`
`“Carrier Aggregation” Should be Construed in Accordance With
`its Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`As set forth in the Petition, “carrier aggregation” should be construed as
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers.” This construction comes directly
`
`from the specification, which defines the term. See Ex. 1101, 1:32-33 (“A wireless
`
`device may support carrier aggregation, which is simultaneous operation on
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`multiple carriers.”);1 id., 2:53-54, 2:54-55 (“Carrier aggregation may also be
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`referred to as multi-carrier operation.”). See Ex. 1102, ¶61. Given the clear
`
`guidance in the specification, “carrier aggregation” should be construed as
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers” under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”) claim construction standard. See Apple Inc. v. Immersion
`
`Corp., IPR2016-01372, 2017 WL 376909, at *2-3 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2017); see
`
`also In re Imes, 778 F.3d 1250, 1252-53 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This meaning is
`
`consistent with the understanding of the term by a POSITA. Ex. 1102, ¶62. Paper
`
`3, Petition (“Pet.”), 31. Ex. 1139, ¶¶14-15. See also Ex. 1136 (Inv. No. 337-ITA-
`
`1093, Order No. 38), 12, 17; see also id., App’x A at 30.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction of “Carrier Aggregation”
`is Far Narrower than the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of
`that Term in Light of the Specification
`Though the ’356 patent expressly defines “carrier aggregation” as
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers,” Patent Owner proposes a
`
`construction of carrier aggregation that is narrower than any disclosure in the ’356
`
`specification. Patent Owner’s arguments in support of its narrowing construction
`
`each fail. First, mistakenly contending that its construction has support in the ’356
`
`written description, Patent Owner exclusively cites to column 2, lines 63-67 in
`
`
`1 Emphasis in quotations and annotations to figures added unless stated otherwise.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`support of “combined higher bandwidth channel for communications,” and the
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`addition of LTE-Advanced carrier aggregation “[t]o relieve this [data] rate-limiting
`
`step.” POR, 13-14. But, the ’356 patent includes no discussion of these concepts
`
`(in column 2, lines 63-37 or anywhere else). Ex. 1101. Instead, for parts [2] and
`
`[3] of its proposed construction, Patent Owner’s arguments that the specification
`
`supports them are based only on its expert’s unsupported extrapolations and
`
`augmentations of the specification. See POR, 13-14. In any case, the LTE carrier
`
`aggregation expressly described at column 2, lines 63-67 is merely one example of
`
`carrier aggregation in the patent. Ex. 1139, ¶¶17-19.
`
`Indeed, during cross examination, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Foty, admitted
`
`that parts [2] and [3] of Patent Owner’s proposed tripartite claim construction do
`
`not find support in the ’356 patent’s written description. Ex. 1140, 69:12-19,
`
`70:12-71:18; 72:14-74:7. Instead, Dr. Foty testified that portions of exhibits 2016,
`
`2017, and 2018 are intrinsic evidence that support this portion of the construction.
`
`Id. Tellingly, the phrases “combined as a single virtual channel” or “provide
`
`higher bandwidth” do not appear in any of the three references. Moreover, even if
`
`these references qualify as intrinsic evidence (which is debatable), Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments about them do not limit the BRI of the term “carrier aggregation.”.
`
`Indeed, none of the evidence on which Patent Owner now relies for parts [2] and
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`[3] of its proposed claim construction was ever discussed during prosecution of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`the ’356 patent. Ex. 1139, ¶¶20-21.
`
`Second, Patent Owner also seeks to invoke the doctrine of prosecution
`
`history disclaimer. POR, 25-28. However, Patent Owner’s own expert abandoned
`
`that theory at his deposition. Ex. 1140, 32:2-15; see also Ex. 1139, ¶22.
`
`Moreover, the Patent Owner’s lack of citation of cases which support its
`
`prosecution history disclaimer theory speaks volumes. The Patent Owner has not
`
`provided any, let alone adequate, legal foundation for its position that prosecution
`
`history disclaimer can be used offensively in a BRI context to artificially limit the
`
`scope of claim language the Patent Owner itself drafted. Petitioner submits that
`
`the doctrine does not apply in this context. See Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`
`742 F.3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`But even if it could be applied, there was no relevant prosecution history
`
`disclaimer because there is no “clear and unequivocal evidence” of disavowal. See
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments in distinguishing the Hirose (Ex. 1124) reference during
`
`prosecution do not even meet the Phillips test, and therefore cannot constitute a
`
`prosecution history disclaimer under any standard. See Ex. 1139, ¶¶23-24.
`
` Seeking to advance its disclaimer argument, Patent Owner points to the
`
`same file history quote provided in the Petition, but with special emphasis on two
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`words: “‘carrier aggregation’ requires an ‘increased aggregated data rate.’” POR,
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`16 (emphasis in original). Those words do not amount to a clear and unmistakable
`
`disclaimer. The “increased aggregated” here refers to “data rate.” Hirose’s
`
`transmission of the “same signals over different paths” does not increase
`
`aggregated data rate because it “results in redundant data at a common data rate.”
`
`Ex. 1115, 7 (emphasis in original). If Hirose’s simultaneous signals contained
`
`non-redundant (i.e., different) data, Patent Owner could not have made the
`
`argument that it did, and therefore the most natural reading of the prosecution
`
`history is that the applicant was distinguishing Hirose on the basis of its redundant
`
`transmissions. Dr. Fay’s initial declaration explains this. Ex. 1102, ¶91. At a
`
`minimum, the competing interpretations of the prosecution history set forth in the
`
`Petition and in the POR demonstrate that any disclaimer was not “clear and
`
`unmistakable.”2 Ex. 1139, ¶25.
`
`
`2 Because there was no clear and unmistakable disclaimer, Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that Petitioner’s proposed claim construction does not include a carve-
`
`out for the prosecution history’s discussion of Hirose, POR, 25-28, misses the
`
`mark entirely. But if the Board concludes that prosecution history did result in a
`
`disclaimer, then the disclaimer was of systems that receive transmissions of
`
`redundant data over multiple channels like Hirose. A claim construction that
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`Third, Patent Owner’s citations to extrinsic evidence cannot change the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of carrier aggregation. 3M Innovative Props.
`
`Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In any event,
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of “carrier aggregation” is broad enough to
`
`encompass each of the differing examples of carrier aggregation provided in Patent
`
`Owner’s extrinsic evidence sources. Ex. 1139, ¶26.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed BRI Construction Does Not Read Out
`“Aggregation”
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction reads out the
`
`word “aggregation.” POR, 30-31. That is incorrect. The ’356 patent claims
`
`require that an “input RF signal” employ “carrier aggregation.” When there is
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers,” those carriers will be aggregated in
`
`the input RF signal. Pet., 52-54. Thus, when read in view of the complete claim
`
`language, “carrier aggregation” in the context of the challenged claims accounts
`
`for aggregation (i.e., collected together, assembled, as defined in the POR, 30),
`
`because the multiple carriers would be present simultaneously in the input RF
`
`signal. Ex. 1139, ¶¶27-29.
`
`
`included that disclaimer would have no impact on the invalidity issues presented in
`
`the Petition. Ex. 1105, 2664; Ex. 1139, ¶25.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`III. GROUND I: PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS FAIL TO REFUTE
`THE EVIDENCE SET FORTH IN THE PETITION
`A. Contrary to Patent Owner’s Argument (POR 37-42), Jeon in View
`of Xiong Includes First and Second Amplifier Stages Configured
`to be Independently Enabled or Disabled
`As explained in the Petition, at 43-49, 55-58, Jeon in view of Xiong teaches
`
`first and second amplifier stages “configured to be independently enabled or
`
`disabled.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`Each of the amplifier stages identified, above, is configured to be
`
`independently enabled or disabled with distinct voltage signals (Vb2 and Vb3) used
`
`to enable respective cascode transistors (M1 and M3). Ex. 1105, FIG. 6. Dr. Fay
`
`explained that because Jeon uses two separate voltages to enable two separate
`
`cascode transistors, a POSITA “would have known the input voltage Vb2 [(or Vb3)]
`
`allows the first amplifier stage [(or second amplifier stage)] to be configured to be
`
`independently enabled or disabled”. Ex. 1102, ¶¶80, 94. Further, during operation
`
`Jeon explicitly teaches that “RF signals at two frequencies are then selectively
`
`amplified by two separate cascode amplifiers (M1–M2, M3–M4)”—showing that
`
`each amplifier can be enabled or disabled independently. Ex. 1105, 2665. Ex.
`
`1139, ¶30.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument ignores the fact that the presence of different bias
`
`voltages Vb2 and Vb3 in Jeon permits the respective cascode transistors to be
`
`independently enabled or disabled. Patent Owner offers no alternative explanation
`
`as to why each cascode transistor would have separate bias voltages. Furthermore,
`
`Patent Owner’s assertion that Jeon contains the same deficiencies as Kaukovuori,
`
`which was cited during prosecution, fails to consider that, unlike Kaukovuori, Jeon
`
`discloses using separate bias voltages on cascode transistors that would permit
`
`amplifier stages to be independently enabled or disabled. Compare Ex. 1105, FIG.
`
`6 with Ex. 1125, FIG. 15. Ex. 1139, ¶31.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`Xiong further teaches that the first and second amplifier stages are
`
`configured to be independently enabled or disabled via switches SW2 325 and
`
`SW1 335. EX1106-Xiong ¶28 (explaining that cascode transistors 321, 322, 323,
`
`and 324 may be “selectively enabled or disabled by” switches SW1 335 and SW2
`
`325); Pet., 44-47, 56-57. Ex. 1139, ¶32.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`Patent Owner’s only argument that Xiong’s gain paths are not amplifier
`
`stages relies on the incorrect assertion that each amplifier stage requires its own
`
`output to a separate load circuit. POR, 42-44.3 However, the amplifier stages of
`
`Xiong do not cease to be amplifier stages simply because they purportedly share a
`
`load circuit. See Ex. 1101, FIG. 10, 13:64-14:12 (Showing four amplifier stages
`
`sharing two load circuits); FIGS. 6A-6C (Showing load circuits outside dotted
`
`lines that denote amplifier stages). In any case, Petitioner relies on Jeon, not
`
`Xiong, for the load circuit limitations, and the claim does not preclude having
`
`separate amplifier stages providing their output to each of multiple shared loads.
`
`Pet., 49-50, 58-59. Ex. 1139, ¶33. Patent Owner’s arguments that the cascode-
`
`based enablement/disablement of the two amplifier stages of Jeon in view of Xiong
`
`do not teach that those amplifier stages are “configured to be independently
`
`enabled or disabled,” POR, 39-42, fail for at least three reasons.
`
`First, Patent Owner’s arguments ignore the word “configured” in the
`
`claimed “configured to be independently enabled or disabled.” Instead, Patent
`
`
`3 Patent Owner incorrectly alleges Dr. Fay construed “amplifier stage” as including
`
`“a source degeneration inductor.” POR, 42. Dr. Fay offered no such construction,
`
`and merely listed such a configuration as an example of an amplifier stage. Ex.
`
`1102 ¶81, n. 14.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Owner identifies one out of several operational/use cases taught in Xiong, and
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`argues that this single operational/use case involves some dependency in the
`
`enablement or disablement of the amplifier stages. POR, 39-41. However, Patent
`
`Owner’s singling out of a single use-case of the circuitry of Xiong fails to rebut
`
`Petitioner’s showing that the amplifier stages of Xiong are configured to be
`
`independently enabled or disabled. Each amplifier stage in Figure 3 of Xiong, as
`
`identified by Petitioner, has its own switch (325 and 335) to supply a voltage
`
`(VBC1 and VBC2) to respective cascode transistors (321/322 and 323/324). Ex.
`
`1106, ¶28. A POSITA would understand that Xiong teaches at least the following
`
`four operational/control states:
`
`SW2 325
`SW1 335
`(VBC2)
`(VBC1)
`State
`OFF
`ON
`1
`ON
`OFF
`2
`ON
`ON
`3
`OFF
`OFF
`4
`Table 1: Basic Control Voltage Configuration of Xiong Amplifier Stages
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response does not dispute that VBC1 and VBC2 are control
`
`signals for the cascode transistors. See POR, 39-42. As such, the presence of these
`
`separate control signals VBC1 and VBC2 (and associated switches), alone, teaches
`
`that each identified amplifier stage in Xiong is “configured to be independently
`
`enabled or disabled.” Patent Owner ignores Xiong’s express description that the
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`cascode transistors of each amplifier stage “may be selectively enabled or disabled
`
`by” respective switches SW1 335 and SW2 325. Ex. 1106, ¶28. The POR fails to
`
`address this language in Xiong. Ex. 1139, ¶35. A device in the prior art that meets
`
`the recited limitations renders the claims unpatentable, even if that device has
`
`additional uses or purposes. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`
`(“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does
`
`not make a claim to that old product patentable.”).
`
`Second, Patent Owner’s arguments ignore Xiong’s express teaching to
`
`control the amplifier stages based on each of the states in Table 1. In the LN mode
`
`(state 3), “the first and second cascode transistors 321-324 are turned on via the
`
`switches SW1 335 and SW2 325, thereby simultaneously enabling the first and
`
`second gain paths 301 and 302.” Ex. 1106, ¶29. By contrast, in the HL modes
`
`(states 1 and 2), “either the first 321, 322 or second 323, 324 cascode transistors
`
`are turned on, thereby enabling either the first 301 or the second 302 gain path.”
`
`Id. Finally, the switches SW1 335 and SW2 325 can be turned off to power down
`
`the device (state 4). Id., ¶34. This confirms that each of the amplifier stages in
`
`Xiong are “independently enabled and disabled” by operation of switches 335 and
`
`325, respectively. Ex. 1139, ¶36.
`
`Third, Patent Owner’s arguments ignore that interpreting “configured to be
`
`independently enabled or disabled” as Patent Owner does in the POR would also
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`exclude the embodiments described in the ’356 patent. Ex. 1139, ¶37. Indeed,
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`Xiong discloses amplifier stages that are “configured to be independently enabled
`
`or disabled” in the same way as the ’356 patent. Specifically, Xiong teaches that
`
`its amplifier stages (as set forth in the Petition) are configured and/or controlled to
`
`operate in States 1/2 and/or State 3 as identified, above, in Table 1. These states
`
`correspond directly to the “Non-CA” (FIG. 6C) modes and “CA” (FIG. 6B) mode
`
`in the ’356 patent. Ex. 1139, ¶37. Patent Owner does not dispute that these states
`
`are possible operating states, and instead argues that they are dependent because
`
`“Xiong discloses that one gain path must be enabled or disabled depending on (1)
`
`the state of the other gain path and (2) whether the input signal is to be amplified
`
`with relatively high gain (LN) or maximum linearity (HL).” POR, 41-42. But any
`
`of these states can be selected without regard to the other states. To argue that this
`
`involves dependency among amplifier stages would read out all embodiments of
`
`the ’356 because this is precisely what is described by the ’356 patent. The fact
`
`that some of the three operating states may be selected for particular performance
`
`characteristics does not make them dependent on one another. Rather, it explains
`
`the reason for Xiong’s inclusion of switches 335 and 325 to independently enable
`
`or disable Xiong’s amplifiers into and out of these three operating states. Ex.
`
`1139, ¶37-38.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`B. Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 44-46) The Petition
`Demonstrates Why a POSITA Would Have Combined Jeon and
`Xiong
`As set forth in the Petition, Pet. 47-49, a POSITA would have found it
`
`obvious to modify Jeon to include the cascode transistor control switches SW1 and
`
`SW2 taught by Xiong. A POSITA would have understood that doing so would
`
`have provided the flexibility to independently turn on and off the LB and HB
`
`stages in Jeon, and would have saved power when the TCA of Jeon was not in use
`
`(e.g., powered off) and when only one RF input (e.g., single point communication)
`
`was received. Pet., 47-48, n. 14. Ex. 1139, ¶39.
`
`As explained above and in the Petition, the presence of different bias
`
`voltages Vb2 and Vb3 in Jeon permits the amplifier stages of Jeon to be
`
`independently enabled or disabled. Pet., 47-48, n. 14; supra Section III.A. Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments focus only on states 1 and 2 in Table 1 above (one amplifier
`
`enabled while the other is disabled), and therefore do not dispute Petitioner’s
`
`showing that a POSITA would have known to turn off unused circuit components
`
`(state 4 in Table 1) using the switches of Xiong. See Pet., 47-48; Ex. 1102, ¶81,
`
`83, 85; Ex. 1106, ¶34 (“[P]rovision of the switch SW1 335, along with SW2 325,
`
`may advantageously allow the entire LNA 400 to be powered on or off when
`
`desired.”). Patent Owner also does not dispute that such a feature would be
`
`desirable in Jeon. See Ex. 1105, 2662, 2664, 2672 (discussing reduction of power
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`consumption as beneficial). At his deposition, Patent Owner’s expert explained
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`that an amplifier stage can be “configured to be independently enabled or disabled”
`
`by providing “a switch on … the gate of the cascode transistor … that would turn
`
`the transistor off and prevent current flow through that path and disable [the
`
`amplifier stage]”—exactly what the combination of Jeon and Xiong discloses. Ex.
`
`1140, 41:5-19. Ex. 1139, ¶40.
`
`Furthermore, as explained in the Petition, it would have been obvious to add
`
`the switches of Xiong to the TCA of Jeon to provide for both single-band and dual-
`
`band modes of operation. Pet., 47-49. Patent Owner provides no explanation for
`
`asserting that Petitioner and Dr. Fay’s stated reasoning is not “legitimate.” (POR
`
`45) To the contrary, Dr. Fay showed that “Jeon notes that concurrent dual-band
`
`operation is only useful in some instances” (Ex. 1105, 2660) and that Jeon
`
`therefore “implicitly teaches that concurrent dual-band operation is not needed in
`
`some cases, such that either the HB or the LB amplifier would remain unused.”
`
`Ex. 1102, ¶83. Adding the switches of Xiong to the TCA of Jeon would have
`
`yielded the predictable result of selectively providing for HB, LB, or dual-band
`
`operation, a result that Patent Owner does not contest. Pet., 48-49. Ex. 1139, ¶41.
`
`Patent Owner also mischaracterizes the Petition’s motivation to combine to
`
`require adding more from Xiong to Jeon than argued in the Petition. As stated in
`
`the Petition and confirmed by Dr. Fay, a POSITA would have found it obvious to
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`use Xiong’s switches to “selectively enable or disable” Jeon’s cascode transistors
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`to save power. See Pet., 47-49. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments on pages
`
`45-46 of the POR, the Petition does not rely (nor does it need to rely) on Xiong’s
`
`discussions that are specific to its adding/subtracting gain paths. Pet., 47-49. Put
`
`differently, a POSITA would have understood how to modify the amplifier stages
`
`of Jeon using the switching topology of Xiong to make them “selectively enabled
`
`or disabled” to save power as taught by Xiong, and would not have been deterred
`
`by Xiong’s description of additional reasons for such selective
`
`enablement/disablement, because, as stated in the Petition (at 48-49), such
`
`modification “would have amounted to no more than combining the prior art
`
`elements of the amplifiers of Jeon and the switches of Xiong according to known
`
`methods to yield the predictable result of an amplifier that can operate in a
`
`concurrent dual-band mode or a single-band mode without consuming excess
`
`power.” Ex. 1102, ¶85. Ex. 1139, ¶42.
`
`C. Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 46-48), Jeon in
`View of Xiong Discloses the Claimed Providing the First/Second
`Output RF Signals to the First/Second Load Circuits
`As explained in the Petition, at 49-50, 58-59, Jeon and Jeon in view of
`
`Xiong disclose providing the first/second output RF signals to the first/second load
`
`circuits. First, Jeon discloses that the first amplifier stage amplifies the input RF
`
`signal and provides an output RF signal only when the first amplifier stage is
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`enabled, as a disabled amplifier does not provide amplification. Pet., 50. Ex.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`1102, ¶87. Second, each amplifier stage of Jeon, when augmented with the
`
`switches of Xiong, would only provide an output when selectively enabled using
`
`the respective switch of Xiong. Pet., 50-51. Ex. 1139, ¶43.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that Xiong only teaches a single amplifier with a
`
`single load is inapposite, because Petitioner relies on Xiong for only the switches
`
`SW1 335 and SW2 325 and not for the load circuits 310 and 311. Pet., 44-49, 50-
`
`51, 56-58, 59-60. Jeon already teaches outputting the first and second output RF
`
`signals (LB and HB outputs) to separate load circuits. Ex. 1105, 2663. Modifying
`
`Jeon to include the switches of Xiong would not change the output of the amplifier
`
`stages, which would continue to be provided to separate loads when the cascode
`
`transistors M1 and M3 of Jeon are enabled by the switches of Xiong. Pet., 44-49,
`
`50-51, 56-58, 59-60. Ex. 1139, ¶44.
`
`D. Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 48-50), Jeon in
`View of Xiong Discloses the Input RF Signal Employing Carrier
`Aggregation
`As explained in the Petition, at 51-54, Jeon in view of Xiong discloses the
`
`“input RF signal employing carrier aggregation.” However, Patent Owner argues
`
`that Jeon in view of Xiong does not disclose the “input RF signal employing
`
`carrier aggregation” under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. POR, 48-50.
`
`Patent Owner is incorrect for multiple reasons. Ex. 1139, ¶45.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`Jeon teaches that the input RF signal received by the tunable concurrent
`
`amplifier in Figure 6 is “a dual-band signal containing two different frequencies
`
`concurrently, one in the low band (LB) from 6 to 10.4 GHz and the other in the
`
`high band (HB) from 10.4 to 18 GHz.” Ex. 1105, 2662. When the amplifiers of
`
`Jeon receive the dual-band signal, it is split across “low band” and “high band”
`
`amplifier stages, and amplified across two (“dual”) outputs. Id., 2663-64; Pet., 51-
`
`54, 58-61. This is also consistent with Patent Owner’s construction of “carrier
`
`aggregation.” Indeed, at least one of the references upon which Patent Owner and
`
`its expert rely for their construction teaches “Carrier aggregation mode is also
`
`known as spectrum aggregation mode, dual carrier mode and dual cell mode.”
`
`Ex. 2017, Abstract; POR, 18, Ex. 2024, ¶97. Ex. 1139, ¶46.
`
`Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner ignores the meaning of
`
`“aggregation.” POR, 49. This is incorrect. See supra at II.C. When dual carriers
`
`are received simultaneously in the amplification circuit of Jeon, they are
`
`aggregated at the single input to the TCA of Jeon. See POR, 30 (“Aggregate
`
`means ‘to collect together, assemble.’”). This is true regardless of whether or not
`
`the two carriers originate from a common source, or whether or not they are
`
`logically related to one another (e.g., at the baseband level). The two carriers do
`
`not somehow travel down separate sides of the wire or avoid one another along the
`
`input. Ex. 1139, ¶47.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`Even under its own construction, Patent Owner has failed to explain why the
`
`amplifier stages of Jeon would not be capable of receiving “multiple carriers that
`
`are combined as a single virtual channel to provide higher bandwidth.” See In re
`
`Schreiber, 128 F.3d, at 1477 (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new
`
`intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product
`
`patentable.”). In contrast, Dr. Fay provided a clearly reasoned explanation,
`
`supported by the ’356 patent, that providing non-redundant data on multiple
`
`channels would result in increased data rate. His statements are therefore not
`
`conclusory as Patent Owner submits. Ex. 1102, ¶¶90-91. Ex. 1139, ¶48.
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Jeon teaches this limitation under
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction, and does not identify any additional arguments
`
`in favor of patentability for claims 17 or 18. POR, 48-50. For the reasons
`
`identified in the Petition, claims 1, 17, and 18 are thus obvious over Jeon in view
`
`of Xiong. Ex. 1139, ¶49.
`
`IV. GROUND II: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT JEON,
`XIONG, AND YOUSSEF RENDER CLAIMS 9 AND 10 OBVIOUS
`Patent Owner argues for claims 9 and 10 that Jeon in view of Xiong fails to
`
`teach the “input RF signal employing carrier aggregation” and the “configured to
`
`be independently enabled or disabled” limitations; however, this is incorrect for the
`
`reasons identified, supra, in Sections III.D and III.A. Patent Owner also argues
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`that Petitioner fails to show why a POSITA would have combined the teachings of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00048
`
`
`Jeon and Xiong with Youssef. POR, 50-52. Patent Owner states that Youssef
`
`describes attenuating UHF and VHF signals, and that because Petitioner did not
`
`specify new values for capacitors C1-C3 in Youssef that would attenuate the
`
`frequencies disclosed by Jeon, Petitioner has allegedly failed to show that a
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to add Youssef’s teachings to Jeon and Xiong
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success. POR, 50-51. This is incorrect for
`
`several reasons. Ex. 1139, ¶50.
`
`First, the amplifier circuit of Jeon is not limited to the particular disclosed
`
`frequencies, which a
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
