DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00573US3
`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 IPR2019-00049
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`
`DECLARATION OF PATRICK FAY, PH. D. IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`Intel 1239
`Intel v. Qualcomm
`IPR2019-00049
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 2 
`II. 
`III.  RELEVANT LAW .......................................................................................... 2 
`IV.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 3 
`V.
`REBUTTAL TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE AND DR. FOTY’S
`OPINIONS ....................................................................................................... 4
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Claim Construction is Incorrect and Overly
`A. 
`Narrow ................................................................................................... 4 
`1. 
`“Carrier Aggregation” Construed in Accordance With its
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ............................................ 4 
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction of “Carrier
`Aggregation” is Narrower than the Broadest Reasonable
`Interpretation of that Term in Light of the Specification ........... 5 
`The Intrinsic Evidence Does Not Support Patent Owner’s
`Construction ................................................................................ 5 
`Prosecution Disclaimer Does Not Limit the Broadest
`Reasonable Interpretation Here ................................................... 9 
`A POSITA Would Not Find Patent Owner’s Citation to
`Extrinsic Evidence Helpful in Understanding How the ’356
`Patent Defines “Carrier Aggregation” ...................................... 12 
`Petitioner’s Proposed BRI Construction Does Not Read Out
`“Aggregation” ........................................................................... 12 
`Ground I: Obviousness Over Jeon and Xiong..................................... 15 
`1. 
`Jeon in View of Xiong Includes First and Second Amplifier
`Stages Configured to be Independently Enabled or Disabled .. 15 
`The Petition Demonstrates Why a POSITA Would Have
`Combined Jeon and Xiong ........................................................ 23 
`Jeon in View of Xiong Discloses the Claimed Providing the
`First/Second Output RF Signals to the First/Second Load
`Circuits ...................................................................................... 26 
`
`B. 
`
`6. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`C. 
`
`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`Jeon in View of Xiong Discloses the Input RF Signal
`Employing Carrier Aggregation ............................................... 27 
`Jeon in View of Xiong Discloses the First/Second Amplifier
`Stage Further Comprising a First/Second Inductor Coupled to
`the First/Second Gain Transistor of Claim 3 ............................ 29 
`Jeon in View of Xiong Discloses the Feedback Circuit of
`Claims 7 and 8 ........................................................................... 30 
`Ground II: Claims 2-8 and 11 are Obvious over Jeon, Xiong, and
`Feasibility Study .................................................................................. 31 
`1. 
`The Feasibility Study is Analogous Art .................................... 31 
`2. 
`The Petition Establishes the Reasons to Combine Jeon, Xiong,
`and the Feasibility Study ........................................................... 32 
`Patent Owner’s Additional Arguments ..................................... 34 
`3. 
`VI.  AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 36 
`VII.  RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 36 
`VIII.  JURAT ........................................................................................................... 36 
`
`6. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`
`I, Patrick Fay, declare as follows:
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Petitioner”) as
`
`an independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office. I previously prepared and submitted a Declaration in
`
`support of the Petition in this proceeding, dated November 8, 2018 (Ex. 1202).
`
`2.
`
`Since preparing my Declaration, I have reviewed Qualcomm’s Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response (“POPR”), the Board’s Decision on Institution
`
`(“DOI”), Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”), Dr. Foty’s declaration submitted in
`
`support of the POR (Ex. 2024), and the transcript of Dr. Foty’s deposition on
`
`November 8, 2019 (Ex. 1240). I have been asked to review and respond to Dr.
`
`Foty’s opinions, including those reflected in the POR, as well as the Board’s
`
`Decision on Institution.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my work on this matter, but my opinions
`
`are based on my own views of the patented technology and the prior art. My
`
`compensation in no way depends on the outcome of this proceeding or the content
`
`of my testimony.
`
`4.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I reviewed and considered the
`
`specification, claims, and file history of U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356 (“’356 patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1201). I have been informed the ’356 patent has a priority date of August 21,
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`2012. I have also reviewed and considered the documents cited by Dr. Foty in his
`
`declaration (Ex. 2024). Additionally, I have reviewed the related Reply, which I
`
`understand Intel will file at the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(USPTO) at the same time as this Declaration is filed at the USPTO.
`
`5.
`
`I have also reviewed all of the documents I cite in this declaration.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`6.
`I describe my qualifications in my first Declaration. Ex. 1202, ¶¶2-9.
`
`III. RELEVANT LAW
`7.
`In my first Declaration, I set forth the applicable principles of patent
`
`law that were provided to me by counsel. Ex. 1202, ¶¶15-30. As appropriate, I
`
`have continued to apply those principles in providing my opinions in this
`
`Declaration. In addition, I understand that the following legal principles apply, as
`
`explained to me by Intel’s legal counsel.
`
`8.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows.
`
`9.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the Petitioner in an inter
`
`partes review Petition may request cancellation of claims as unpatentable only on
`
`grounds that such claims are anticipated or would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the purported invention, and only on the basis
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. A petitioner need only
`
`establish unpatentability of challenged claims by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence—i.e., that the claims are more likely than not unpatentable. My opinions
`
`in this matter address the invalidity of the challenged claims as anticipated and
`
`obvious.
`
`10.
`
`I have been informed and understand that an applicant for a patent can
`
`disclaim or disavow claim scope via statements made during prosecution without
`
`an express amendment, but only if such statements of disavowal or disclaimer are
`
`clear, unmistakable, unambiguous, and unequivocal.
`
`11.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a prior art reference is
`
`considered analogous art to the challenged patent for purposes of determining
`
`obviousness if it is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
`
`addressed, or if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
`
`which the inventor of the challenged patent was involved.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`12. As stated in my original declaration (Ex. 1202), a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention would have had at
`
`least an M.S. degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and would
`
`have had at least two years of experience with the structure and operation of RF
`
`transceivers and related structures (or the equivalent).
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`13. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Foty, does not dispute this statement of the
`
`level of ordinary skill of a POSITA. Ex. 2024, ¶79.
`
`V. REBUTTAL TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE AND DR. FOTY’S
`OPINIONS
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Claim Construction is Incorrect and
`Overly Narrow
`1.
`“Carrier Aggregation” Construed in Accordance With its
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`14. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “carrier aggregation” is
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers.” This construction comes directly
`
`from the specification, which defines the term. See Ex. 1201, 1:32-33 (“A wireless
`
`device may support carrier aggregation, which is simultaneous operation on
`
`multiple carriers.”), 2:53-54 (“Wireless device 110 may support carrier
`
`aggregation, which is operation on multiple carriers.”), 2:54-55 (“Carrier
`
`aggregation may also be referred to as multi-carrier operation.”). 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. This meaning is consistent
`
`with the understanding of the term by a POSITA.
`
`15. For this IPR proceeding, it is my understanding that the BRI claim
`
`construction standard applies. Paper 8, Decision on Institution (“DOI”), 10.
`
`4
`
`

`

`2.
`
`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction of “Carrier
`Aggregation” is Narrower than the Broadest Reasonable
`Interpretation of that Term in Light of the Specification
` Despite the ’356 patent expressly defining “carrier aggregation” as
`
`16.
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers” and discussing “Bluetooth,” WiFi
`
`(e.g., “802.11”), and “LTE” devices (among others) that support carrier
`
`aggregation, Patent Owner’s proposed construction appears to be based on one
`
`subset of those technologies, LTE. Patent Owner’s proposed construction of
`
`carrier aggregation is narrower than any disclosure in the ’356 specification.
`
`17. Patent Owner proposes a tripartite construction for carrier aggregation
`
`as “[1] simultaneous operation on multiple carriers [2] that are combined as a
`
`single virtual channel [3] to provide higher bandwidth.” The second and third
`
`parts of this proposed construction lack support in the ’356 patent specification.
`
`3.
`
`The Intrinsic Evidence Does Not Support Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`18. Patent Owner’s citation of the ’356 patent specification in the POR
`
`does not support this proposed construction. For example, Patent Owner cites
`
`column 2, lines 63-67 of the ’356 patent in support of “combined higher bandwidth
`
`channel for communications,” and the addition of LTE-Advanced carrier
`
`aggregation “[t]o relieve this [data] rate-limiting step.” POR, 13-14. However,
`
`the ’356 patent includes no discussion of these concepts; the quoted section merely
`
`recites the maximum carrier bandwidth in LTE, and indicates the number of bands
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`defined in LTE and how they can be configured. No mention of combined
`
`bandwidth or data rate is provided. Ex. 1201. In fact, parts [2] and [3] of Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed construction lack written description in the ’356 patent, and the
`
`LTE carrier aggregation described at column 2, lines 63-67 is just one example of
`
`carrier aggregation in the patent.
`
`19. The applicant of the ’356 patent chose very broad language to
`
`describe the types of transmissions and communications equipment encompassed
`
`by the patent. For example, the written description broadly states that a “carrier”
`
`“may refer to a range of frequencies used for communication…A carrier may also
`
`be referred to as a component carrier (CC), frequency channel, a cell, etc.,”
`
`expressly broadening the meaning of “carrier” beyond the “component carrier”
`
`example given in the written description. This “component carrier” example from
`
`among the list of examples in the ‘356 specification is now the only example upon
`
`which the Patent Owner appears to rely. Ex. 1201, 1:33-38; see also Ex. 1240,
`
`50:14-51:9. A “frequency channel” or “cell” are far broader than the definition of
`
`“carrier” that the Patent Owner currently seeks to embed within its definition of
`
`“carrier aggregation,” which is effectively a “component carrier” as that term is
`
`used in the context of LTE. Id. Likewise, the ’356 patent states that “[w]ireless
`
`device 110 may be a cellular phone, a smartphone, a tablet, a wireless modem, a
`
`personal digital assistant (PDA), a handheld device, a laptop computer, a
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`smartbook, a netbook, a cordless phone, a wireless local loop (WLL) station, a
`
`Bluetooth device, etc. Wireless device 110 may be capable of communicating with
`
`wireless system 120. Wireless device 110 may also be capable of receiving signals
`
`from broadcast stations (e.g., a broadcast station 134), signals from satellites (e.g.,
`
`a satellite 150) in one or more global navigation satellite systems (GNSS).” Ex.
`
`1201, 2:40-50. Thus, the applicant signaled that the patent would cover devices
`
`other than those that implement LTE. The patent further states that “[w]ireless
`
`device 110 may support one or more radio technologies for wireless
`
`communication such as LTE, cdma2000, WCDMA, GSM, 802.11, etc.” Id., 2:50-
`
`53. By broadly encompassing all of these devices, device types, and wireless
`
`technologies, the ’356 patent’s written description expressly broadens the scope of
`
`the patent to encompass virtually any wireless device or radio technology. Patent
`
`Owner’s current proposed narrow construction is inconsistent with the broadening
`
`approach taken by the applicant in the written description.
`
`20. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Foty, stated that parts [2] and [3] of Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed tripartite claim construction do not find support in the ’356
`
`patent’s written description. His deposition testimony includes explanations that,
`
`while “simultaneous operation on multiple carriers” came from the ’356 patent
`
`written description, Ex. 1240, 69:12-19, the [2] “that are combined as a single
`
`virtual channel” and [3] “to provide higher bandwidth” portions of the proposed
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`claim construction come only from prior art that was cited in the prosecution
`
`history. Id., 70:12-71:18; 72:14-74:7. Dr. Foty alleges that WO 2012/008705 (Ex.
`
`2016), GB2472978 (Ex. 2017), and U.S. Pat. No. 8,442,473 (Ex. 1225) are
`
`intrinsic evidence that support this portion of the construction. Id.
`
`21. However, based upon my review and search, the phrases “combined
`
`as a single virtual channel” or “provide higher bandwidth” do not appear in any of
`
`the three references relied upon by Dr. Foty. A POSITA would not consider Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments about these references to limit the BRI of the term “carrier
`
`aggregation” given the clear definition of that term in the ’356 written description.
`
`Indeed, while the three references may mention concepts similar to those proposed
`
`for parts [2] and [3] of the Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, the references’
`
`various descriptions of instances of carrier aggregation are all encompassed by the
`
`BRI of that term: simultaneous operation on multiple carriers. Further, based on
`
`my review of the ’356 patent’s file history, none of the evidence on which Patent
`
`Owner now relies for parts [2] and [3] of its proposed claim construction was
`
`discussed during prosecution of the ’356 patent. Kaukovuori (Ex. 1225) was cited
`
`during prosecution on December 26, 2014, but the prosecution file wrapper does
`
`not include the quote reproduced at page 17 of the POR, and the Examiner
`
`referenced a different passage in the office action. Ex. 1218, 7. Furthermore, my
`
`review of the prosecution history indicates that by rejecting the claims based on the
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`Kaukovuori reference disclosing one specific type of carrier aggregation, a
`
`POSITA would not have understood the Examiner to be limiting the Examiner’s
`
`interpretation of carrier aggregation based on the Kaukovuori reference. For the
`
`other two references which Dr. Foty identifies as intrinsic, I note that these are two
`
`references selected from among approximately 350 references cited either by the
`
`Examiner or in information disclosure statements, and that Dr. Foty reproduces in
`
`his declaration (Ex. 2024) quotes from these references that were not part of the
`
`prosecution file wrapper. Ex. 2024, ¶¶89-91.
`
`4.
`
`Prosecution Disclaimer Does Not Limit the Broadest
`Reasonable Interpretation Here
`In its POR, Patent Owner also seeks to invoke the doctrine of
`
`22.
`
`prosecution history disclaimer in arguing for its proposed construction. POR, 25-
`
`28. However, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Foty, stated with respect to carrier
`
`aggregation: “I don’t think there’s a disavowal of that or a disclaimer.” Ex. 1240,
`
`32:2-15. Reviewing the prosecution history of the ’356 patent, I agree that there
`
`was no disavowal or disclaimer of claim scope with respect to “carrier
`
`aggregation.”
`
`23. During prosecution of the ’356 patent, the Examiner rejected the
`
`claims based on anticipation by U.S. Patent No. 7,317,894 (“Hirose”) (Ex. 1224).
`
`Ex. 1214, 2-4. Hirose taught a receiver used for frequency, space, and time
`
`diversity having two amplifiers that receive a common input and provide separate
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`outputs to process “the same signals [sent] over different paths.” Ex. 1215, 7. In
`
`Hirose, three different carriers (e.g., both “satellite wave” carriers and the “ground
`
`wave” carrier illustrated in Hirose Figure 1, annotated below) containing the same
`
`data are received simultaneously and synthesized to obtain a single stream of data,
`
`as shown in annotated Figure 1 of Hirose, below. Id.
`
`
`
`24. Patent Owner responded to the Examiner’s rejection by amending its
`
`claims to require an input RF signal “employing carrier aggregation.” Id., 2-6.
`
`Patent Owner argued that Hirose does not disclose carrier aggregation because it
`
`describes receiving “redundant data” over multiple carriers, which Patent Owner
`
`contended does not result in an “increased aggregated data rate.” Id., 7-8. Thus,
`
`when Patent Owner added “the input RF signal employing carrier aggregation” to
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`distinguish the Hirose reference, Patent Owner’s point of distinction was that
`
`Hirose did not employ “carrier aggregation” because it disclosed redundant data
`
`transmissions. Id. Patent Owner did not argue that “carrier aggregation” required
`
`anything more than non-redundant data transmissions. See id.
`
`25. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s statement that “Patent Owner did
`
`not argue during prosecution that carrier aggregation required anything more than
`
`non-redundant transmissions.” POR, 15 (quoting Pet., 28). As support for its
`
`position, Patent Owner points to the same file history quote provided in the
`
`Petition, with an emphasis on Patent Owner’s argument that “‘carrier aggregation’
`
`requires an ‘increased aggregated data rate.’” Id. A POSITA would understand
`
`those words to not amount to a clear and unmistakable disclaimer as I understand
`
`to be required for prosecution history 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. 1215, 7 (bold, italics 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 a POSITA reviewing
`
`the prosecution history would understand that the applicant was distinguishing
`
`Hirose on the basis of its redundant transmissions. My initial declaration explains
`
`this. Ex. 1202, ¶89 (“This is different than Hirose (EX1224-Hirose), which the
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`Patent Owner distinguished during prosecution. Specifically, Jeon does not require
`
`the data sent over the dual carriers to be redundant data.”). At a minimum, a
`
`POSITA would understand that 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.”
`
`5.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Find Patent Owner’s Citation to
`Extrinsic Evidence Helpful in Understanding How the ’356
`Patent Defines “Carrier Aggregation”
`In a case such as this one where the intrinsic evidence so clearly
`
`26.
`
`supports the definition that Patent Owner included in its specification, a POSITA
`
`would assign this extrinsic evidence little or no relevance. Furthermore, many of
`
`the extrinsic references included with Patent Owner’s Response were dated or filed
`
`well after the filing date of the ’356 patent, and are also not prior art to the ’356
`
`patent. See Exs. 2018 (earliest filing 2013), 2019 (Sep. 2013), 2022 (2014). A
`
`POSITA would not accord these extrinsic sources any weight and, in any event,
`
`these extrinsic sources are not inconsistent with Petitioner’s proposed construction
`
`of “carrier aggregation,” which is broad enough to encompass each of the differing
`
`examples of carrier aggregation provided in Patent Owner’s extrinsic evidence
`
`sources.
`
`6.
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed BRI Construction Does Not Read Out
`“Aggregation”
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`27. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s BRI construction reads out the
`
`word “aggregation.” POR, 30-31. I disagree. When the claimed “input RF
`
`signal” employs “simultaneous operation on multiple carriers,” those carriers will
`
`be aggregated along the input RF signal. Ex. 1202, ¶89 (“[T]he incoming RF
`
`signal contains two frequencies at LB and HB respectively, and feeds a front-end
`
`tunable concurrent amplifier.”). Thus, “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.
`
`28. Because the ’356 patent describes “carrier aggregation” as
`
`encompassing wireless devices that support “one or more radio technologies for
`
`wireless communication such as LTE, cdma2000, WCDMA, GSM, 802.11, etc.,”
`
`when two or more carriers in a carrier aggregated signal are received according to
`
`“one or more” of these technologies, those carriers are all aggregated in the input
`
`RF signal (e.g., “RFin” in FIG. 6A) that enters the amplifier.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`
`
`
`29. This RFin is one wire, one input, and whether two carriers received
`
`are two LTE carriers, or one low-band (LB) and one high-band (HB) carrier, or
`
`even (e.g.) two WiFi carriers or one Bluetooth and one WiFi carrier, the input RF
`
`signal RFin will include all of these carriers. The only difference would be the
`
`numerical values of the frequencies of these carriers that are present
`
`simultaneously on the input. Thus, any two or more carriers received
`
`simultaneously are aggregated at RFin, which is the claimed “input RF signal.”
`
`The ’356 patent challenged claims relate to “receiv[ing] an input radio frequency
`
`(RF) signal” or “amplifying a first input radio frequency (RF) signal.” Ex. 1201,
`
`Claim 1. To the extent Patent Owner’s arguments about “aggregation” suggest a
`
`singular transmission node or a single logical transmission channel, these narrow
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`interpretations are inconsistent with the ’356 patent, and are not supported by any
`
`presented evidence.
`
`B. Ground I: Obviousness Over Jeon and Xiong
`1.
`Jeon in View of Xiong Includes First and Second Amplifier
`Stages Configured to be Independently Enabled or Disabled
`30. As explained in the Petition, at 42-48, 54-57, and in my initial
`
`declaration, at ¶¶77-84, 91-95, Jeon in view of Xiong teaches these limitations.
`
`For example, Jeon teaches two separate amplifier stages, which are identified as
`
`the low-band (LB) and high-band (HB) amplifiers in the annotated versions of
`
`Figure 6 below. Pet., 42-43, 54-56.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`
`
`Each of the amplifier stages identified, above, is configured to be independently
`
`enabled or disabled at least in part due to the presence of distinct voltage signals
`
`(Vb2 and Vb3) used to enable respective cascode transistors (M1 and M3). Ex. 1205,
`
`FIG. 6. My initial declaration 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.
`
`1202, ¶¶78, 92. 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. 1205, 2665.
`
`31. Patent Owner’s argument ignores the fact that the presence of
`
`different bias voltages Vb2 and Vb3 in Jeon permits the respective cascode
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`transistors to be independently enabled or disabled. But 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. 1205, FIG. 6 with Ex. 1225, FIG. 15.
`
`32. Xiong also teaches two separate amplifier stages, which are identified
`
`in the annotated versions of Figure 3 below. Pet., 43-48, 56-57.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 1206, ¶28 (“[T]he first cascode transistors 321, 322 may be selectively enabled
`
`or disabled by a switch SW1 335, which pulls the gates of transistors 321, 322 to
`
`either a high or a low voltage. Similarly, the second cascode transistors 323, 324
`
`may be selectively enabled or disabled by a switch SW2 325, which pulls the gates
`
`of the transistors 323, 324 to either a high or a low voltage.”).
`
`33. Patent Owner’s only argument that Xiong’s gain paths are not
`
`amplifier stages relies on the incorrect assertion that each amplifier stage requires
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`its own output to a separate load circuit. POR, 39-41.1 However, the amplifier
`
`stages of Xiong do not cease to be amplifier stages simply because they may share
`
`a load circuit. This is consistent with how the phrase “amplifier stage” is used in
`
`the ’356 patent. See Ex. 1201, FIG. 10, 13:64-14:12 (Showing four amplifier
`
`stages sharing two load circuits); FIGS. 6A-6C (Showing load circuits outside the
`
`dotted lines that denote amplifier stages). And in any case, Petition and my initial
`
`declaration 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., 48-49, 57-59.
`
`34. Patent Owner’s arguments that the cascode-based enablement or
`
`disablement of the two amplifier stages of Jeon in view of Xiong are somehow
`
`dependent on one another, POR, 37-39, ignore at least three key concepts. First,
`
`they ignore the word “configured” in the claimed “configured to be independently
`
`enabled or disabled.” Second, they ignore Xiong’s express teaching in paragraphs
`
`
`1 Patent Owner incorrectly alleges I construed “amplifier stage” as including “a
`
`source degeneration inductor.” POR, 40. My initial declaration made no such
`
`construction; instead, I merely listed such a configuration as an example of an
`
`amplifier stage. Ex. 1202 ¶81, n. 14.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`[0028]-[0030] regarding control of the two amplifier stages as claimed. Third,
`
`they ignore that interpreting “configured to be independently enabled or disabled”
`
`as Patent Owner does in the POR would exclude the embodiments described in
`
`the ’356 patent.
`
`35. First, Patent Owner identifies one out of several operational/use cases
`
`taught in Xiong, and argues that this single operational/use case involves some
`
`dependency in the enablement or disablement of the amplifier stages. POR, 37-39.
`
`However, Patent Owner’s singling out of a single use case of the circuitry of Xiong
`
`fails to rebut the Petition’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 in my initial declaration, has its own switch (325
`
`and 335) to supply a voltage (VBC1 and VBC2) to respective cascode transistors
`
`(321/322 and 323/324). Ex. 1206, ¶28. A POSITA would understand that Xiong
`
`teaches at least four operational/control states, which I have listed in Table 1
`
`below:
`
`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
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`Patent Owner’s Response does not dispute that VBC1 and VBC2 are control
`
`signals for the cascode transistors. See POR, 37-41. 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
`
`cascode transistors of each amplifier stage “may be selectively enabled or disabled
`
`by” respective switches SW1 335 and SW2 325. Ex. 1206, ¶28. The POR fails to
`
`address this language in Xiong.
`
`36.
`
`Second, Xiong explicitly teaches operational modes corresponding to
`
`each of the states I show 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. 1206, ¶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.
`
`37. Finally, Xiong discloses amplifier stages that are “configured to be
`
`independently enabled or disabled” to the same extent disclosed by the ’356 patent.
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`US Patent 9,154,356
`Xiong teaches that its amplifier stages (as set forth in my initial declaration) are
`
`configured to be enabled or disabled independently of whether or not any other
`
`amplifier stage is enabled