`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF
`“CARRIER AGGREGATION” (POR 10-31) 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 35-39), 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 42-44), the
`Petition Demonstrates Why a POSITA Would Have
`Combined Jeon and Xiong .................................................................. 14
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 44-45),
`Jeon in View of Xiong Discloses the Claimed Providing
`the First/Second Output RF Signals to the First/Second
`Load Circuits ....................................................................................... 17
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 46-47)
`Jeon in View of Xiong Discloses the Input RF Signal
`Employing Carrier Aggregation .......................................................... 18
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 48-50),
`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 ................................................................................................ 20
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 50-51),
`Jeon in View of Xiong Discloses the Feedback Circuit of
`Claims 7 and 8 ..................................................................................... 22
`IV. GROUND II: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT CLAIMS 2-8
`AND 11 ARE OBVIOUS OVER JEON, XIONG AND FEASIBILITY
`STUDY .......................................................................................................... 23
`A.
`The Petition Establishes that Feasibility Study is
`Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 23
`The Petition Establishes the Reasons to Combine Jeon,
`Xiong, and Feasibility Study ............................................................... 24
`Patent Owner’s Additional Arguments are Without Merit ................. 26
`C.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`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 10-31) 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. 1201, 1:32-33 (“A wireless
`
`device may support carrier aggregation, which is simultaneous operation on
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`multiple carriers.”),1 2:53-54, 2:54-55 (“Carrier aggregation may also be referred
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`to as multi-carrier operation.”). See Ex. 1202, ¶60. 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. 1202, ¶61. Paper 3, Petition (“Pet.”), 31. Ex. 1239, ¶14.
`
`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 supporting this narrowing construction
`
`fail. Ex. 1239, ¶¶16-17.
`
`
`1 Emphasis in quotations and annotations to figures added unless stated otherwise.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`First, mistakenly contending that its construction has support in the ’356
`
`written description, Patent Owner exclusively cites to column 2, lines 63-67 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. But the ’356 patent includes no discussion of these concepts
`
`(in column 2, lines 63-37 or anywhere else). Ex. 1201. 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. 1239, ¶¶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. 1240, 70:12-71:18;
`
`72:14-74:7. Instead, Dr. Foty testified that portions of Exhibits 2016, 2017, and
`
`1225 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, 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”.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Indeed, none of the evidence on which Patent Owner now relies for parts [2] and
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`[3] of its proposed claim construction was ever discussed during prosecution of
`
`the ’356 patent. Ex. 1239, ¶¶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. 1240, 32:2-15; see also Ex. 1239, ¶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. 1224) reference during
`
`prosecution do not even meet the Phillips test, and therefore cannot constitute a
`
`prosecution history disclaimer under any standard. See Ex. 1239, ¶¶23-24.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`Seeking to advance its disclaimer argument, Patent Owner points to the
`
`same file history quote provided in the Petition, but with special emphasis placed
`
`on two words: “‘carrier aggregation’ requires an ‘increased aggregated data rate.’”
`
`POR, 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. 1215, 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. 1202, ¶89. 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. 1239, ¶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
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`Third, Patent Owner’s citations to extrinsic evidence cannot change the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of carrier aggregation. 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. 1239, ¶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 (“[T]he incoming RF signal contains two frequencies
`
`at LB and HB respectively, and feeds a front-end tunable concurrent amplifier.”).
`
`
`disclaimer, then the disclaimer was of systems that receive transmissions of
`
`redundant data over multiple channels. A claim construction that included that
`
`disclaimer would have no impact on the invalidity issues presented in the Petition,
`
`because a POSITA would understand Jeon in view of Xiong to disclose multiple
`
`(HB and LB) carriers that need not contain redundant data. Ex. 1205, 2664; Ex.
`
`1239, ¶25.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Thus, when read in view of the complete claim language, “carrier aggregation” in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`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. 1239, ¶27.
`
`In short, 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 otherwise, these narrow interpretations are inconsistent with
`
`the ’356 patent and unsupported. Ex. 1239, ¶¶28-29.
`
`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 35-39), Jeon in View
`of Xiong Includes First and Second Amplifier Stages Configured
`to be Independently Enabled or Disabled
`As explained in the Petition, at 42-48, 54-57, 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
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 1205, FIG. 6. Dr. Fay explained
`
`that because Jeon uses two separate voltages to enable each cascode transistor, 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
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`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”—showing that each amplifier can be enabled or
`
`disabled independently. Ex. 1205, 2665. Ex. 1239, ¶30.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument ignores the fact that the presence of different bias
`
`voltages in Jeon permits the respective cascode transistors to be independently
`
`enabled or disabled and 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. Ex. 1239, ¶31.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`
`
`Xiong also two separate amplifier stages (shown above) that are configured to be
`
`independently enabled or disabled via switches SW2 325 and SW1 335. Pet., 43-
`
`48, 56-57; Ex. 1206, ¶28 (“[T]he first cascode transistors 321, 322 [and 323, 324]
`
`may be selectively enabled or disabled by a switch SW1 335 [and SW2 325],
`
`which pulls the gates of transistors 321, 322 [and 323, 324] to either a high or a
`
`low voltage.”). Ex. 1239, ¶32.
`
`Patent Owner’s 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, 39-41.3 However, the amplifier stages of Xiong do
`
`
`3 Patent Owner incorrectly alleges Dr. Fay construed “amplifier stage” as including
`
`“a source degeneration inductor.” POR, 40. Dr. Fay made no such construction,
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`not cease to be amplifier stages simply because they purportedly share a load
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`circuit. 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). 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., 48-49, 57-59.
`
`Ex. 1239, ¶33.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments that the cascode-based enablement or
`
`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, 37-39, also fail. Ex. 1239, ¶34.
`
`First, Patent Owner’s arguments ignore the word “configured” in the
`
`claimed “configured to be independently enabled or disabled.” Instead, Patent
`
`Owner identifies one out of several operational/use cases taught in Xiong, and
`
`argues that it involves some dependency in the enablement or disablement of the
`
`amplifier stages. POR, 37-39. However, Patent Owner’s singling out of a single
`
`
`and merely listed such a configuration as an example of an amplifier stage. Ex.
`
`1202 ¶81, n. 14.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`use case of the circuitry of Xiong fails to rebut Petitioner’s showing that the
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`amplifier stages of Xiong are configured to be independently enabled or disabled.
`
`Each amplifier stage in Figure 3 of Xiong 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
`
`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, 37-41. As such, the presence of these
`
`separate control signals VBC1 and VBC2 (and associated switches), alone, teaches
`
`that each amplifier stage in Xiong is “configured to be independently enabled or
`
`disabled.” The POR completely 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; Ex. 1239, ¶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,
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`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. 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. Ex. 1239, ¶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
`
`exclude the embodiments described in the ’356 patent. Ex. 1239, ¶37-38. Indeed,
`
`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
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`operate in States 1/2 and/or State 3 as identified above, in Table 1. These states
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`correspond directly to the “Non-CA” (FIG. 6C) and “CA” (FIG. 6B) modes in the
`
`’356 patent. Ex. 1239, ¶37. Patent Owner doesn’t dispute that these 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, 39. 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 (as well as
`
`a fourth “power down” state). Ex. 1239, ¶37-38.
`
`B. Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 42-44), the Petition
`Demonstrates Why a POSITA Would Have Combined Jeon and
`Xiong
`As set forth in the Petition, Pet. 46-48, 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
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`have provided the flexibility to independently turn on and off the LB and HB
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`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 or single-band
`
`communication) was received. Pet., 46-48, n. 16. Ex. 1239, ¶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., 46-47, n. 16; 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., 46-47; Ex. 1202, ¶80,
`
`81, 83; Ex. 1206, ¶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. 1205, 2662, 2664, 2672 (discussing reducing power
`
`consumption as beneficial). At his deposition, Patent Owner’s expert explained
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`amplifier stage]”—exactly what the combination of Jeon and Xiong discloses. Ex.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`1240, 41:5-19. Ex. 1239, ¶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., 46-48. Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner
`
`identifies no legitimate reason for selecting and modifying Jeon to operate as a
`
`single-band receiver,” POR, 42-43, but does not explain why Petitioner and Dr.
`
`Fay’s stated reasoning is not “legitimate.” To the contrary, Dr. Fay showed that
`
`“Jeon notes that concurrent dual-band operation is only useful in some instances”
`
`(Ex. 1205, 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. 1202, ¶81. 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. Ex. 1239, ¶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
`
`use Xiong’s switches to “selectively enable or disable” Jeon’s cascode transistors
`
`to save power. See Pet., 46-48; Ex. 1202, ¶¶81-84. Contrary to Patent Owner’s
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`arguments on pages 45-46 of the POR, the Petition does not rely (nor does it need
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`to rely) on Xiong’s discussions that are specific to its adding/subtracting gain
`
`paths. Pet., 46-48. 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), 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. 1239, ¶42.
`
`C. Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 44-45), 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 48-50, 57-60, 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
`
`enabled, as a disabled amplifier does not provide amplification. Pet., 48-49. Ex.
`
`1202, ¶85. Second, each amplifier stage of Jeon, when augmented with the
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`switches of Xiong, would only provide an output when selectively enabled using
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`the respective switch of Xiong. Pet., 50. Ex. 1239, ¶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., 43-48, 50,
`
`56-57, 59-60. Jeon already teaches outputting the first and second output RF
`
`signals (LB output and HB output) to separate load circuits. Ex. 1205, 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., 43-48, 50, 56-57, 59-60. Ex. 1239, ¶44.
`
`D. Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 46-47) Jeon in
`View of Xiong Discloses the Input RF Signal Employing Carrier
`Aggregation
`As explained in the Petition, at 51-53, 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, 46-47.
`
`Patent Owner is incorrect for multiple reasons. Ex. 1239, ¶45.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`concurrently, one in the low band (LB) from 6 to 10.4 GHz and the other in the
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`high band (HB) from 10.4 to 18 GHz.” Ex. 1205, 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-
`
`53, 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 that “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. 1239, ¶46.
`
`Patent Owner further argues that the Petition ignores the meaning of
`
`“aggregation.” POR, 46. This is incorrect. See supra, 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. 1239, ¶47.
`
`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
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`are combined as a single virtual channel to provide higher bandwidth.” See In re
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00049
`
`
`Schreiber, 128 F.3d, at 1477. 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. 1202, ¶¶88-89. Ex. 1239, ¶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 2, 4-6, 8, and 11. POR, 34-51. Therefore,
`
`claims 2-8 and 11 are obvious over Jeon in view of Xiong. Ex. 1239, ¶49.
`
`E. Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 48-50), 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
`Jeon in view of Xiong discloses the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons
`
`described in the Petition. Pet., 64-68. Patent Owner incorrectly asserts that
`
`“Petitioner fails to sufficiently articulate a motivation to select and combi