UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TCT MOBILE (US), INC.; TCT MOBILE (US) HOLDINGS, INC.;
`HUIZHOU TCL MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD.; AND TCL
`COMMUNICATION, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,239,111
`Issue Date: July 3, 2007
`Title: UNIVERSAL SERIAL BUS ADAPTER
`FOR A MOBILE DEVICE
`
`Case No. IPR2021-_____
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 7,239,111
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-14, AND 16-18
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §312 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`
`1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF CHALLENGE 37 C.F.R. §42.104(B) ................................ 2
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE GRANTED; DISCRETIONARY
`DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE ................................................................ 3
`A.
`The Apple/Fintiv Factors Support Institution ....................................... 3
`B.
`The General Plastics Factors Support Institution ................................. 7
`C.
`The Factors Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Support Institution ................. 8
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’111 PATENT ........................................................... 8
`A. Disclosure of the ’111 Patent ............................................................... 8
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’111 Patent .............................................. 10
`C.
`Priority Date ....................................................................................... 12
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................... 12
`V.
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 13
`A.
`Background of USB Technology and USB Specification Prior
`Art ....................................................................................................... 13
`B. Use of SE1 State in Various Contexts ................................................ 23
`1.
`US Patent 6,531,845 (“Kerai”) (Ex. 1012) .............................. 24
`2.
`US Patent 6,625,738 (“Shiga”) (Ex. 1013) .............................. 25
`3.
`US Patent Application Publication US20030135766
`(“Zyskowski”) (Ex. 1014) ........................................................ 26
`US Patent 6,625,790 (“Casebolt”) (Ex. 1015) ......................... 26
`Cypress Semiconductor enCoReUSB Datasheet
`(“Cypress”) (Ex. 1016) ............................................................ 27
`C. Overview of Morita ............................................................................ 28
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 30
`A.
`“identification signal . . . configured to indicate to the mobile
`device that the power socket is not a USB host or hub” (Claims
`1 and 17) ............................................................................................. 31
`B. Means-Plus-Function Terms (Claim 18) ............................................ 32
`
`4.
`5.
`
`i
`
`

`

`3.
`
`4.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`“means for receiving energy from a power socket” ................ 33
`“means for regulating the received energy from the
`power socket to generate a power output” ............................... 34
`“means for generating an identification signal that
`indicates to the mobile device that the power socket is
`not a USB hub or host” ............................................................ 34
`“means for coupling the power output and identification
`signal to the mobile device” ..................................................... 35
`VIII. ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 36
`A.
`CLAIMs 1-14 AND 16-18 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103 OVER MORITA
`AND/OR THE KNOWLEDGE OF A POSITA ................................ 36
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 36
`a.
`1[Pre]: A Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) adapter
`for providing power to a mobile device through a
`USB port, comprising: ................................................... 36
`1[a]: a plug unit configured to receive energy from
`a power socket ............................................................... 37
`1[b]: a power converter coupled to the plug unit,
`the power converter being configured to regulate
`the received energy from the power socket to
`generate a power output ................................................. 39
`1[c]: an identification subsystem configured to
`generate an identification signal, wherein the
`identification signal is configured to indicate to the
`mobile device that the power socket is not a USB
`host or hub; and ............................................................. 41
`1[d]: a USB connector coupled to the power
`converter and the identification subsystem, the
`USB connector being configured to couple the
`power output and the identification signal to the
`mobile device ................................................................. 51
`Claim 2. The USB adapter of claim 1, wherein the plug
`unit is configured to couple directly with the power
`socket........................................................................................ 52
`
`e.
`
`2.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 3. The USB adapter of claim 2, wherein the plug
`unit is configured to couple to at least one power socket
`selected from the group consisting of: North American
`power socket, United Kingdom power socket, European
`power socket, Australian power socket, airplane power
`socket, and automobile power socket. ..................................... 52
`Claim 4. The USB adapter of claim 1, further comprising
`a plug adapter that is configured to couple the plug unit
`to the power socket. ................................................................. 53
`Claim 5. The USB adapter of claim 4, wherein the plug
`adapter is configured to couple to at least one power
`socket selected from the group consisting of: North
`American power socket, United Kingdom power socket,
`European power socket, Australian power socket,
`airplane power socket, and automobile power socket. ............ 54
`Claim 6. the USB adapter of claim 1, wherein the
`identification signal comprises a voltage level that is
`applied to at least one data line in the USB connector. ........... 54
`Claim 7. The USB adapter of claim 1, wherein the
`identification subsystem comprises a hard-wired
`connection of a voltage level to one or more data lines in
`the USB connector. .................................................................. 55
`Claim 8. The USB adapter of claim 1, wherein the
`identification subsystem comprises a USB controller that
`is configured to provide a voltage level to one or more
`data lines in the USB connector. .............................................. 58
`Claim 9. The USB adapter of claim 1, wherein the
`identification subsystem further comprises a switch that
`is configured to couple the power output to the USB
`connector. ................................................................................. 59
`10. Claim 10. The USB adapter of claim 9, wherein the
`identification subsystem is configured to cause the switch
`to disconnect the power output from the USB connector. ....... 61
`11. Claim 11. The USB adapter of claim 10, wherein the
`identification subsystem is configured to cause the switch
`to reconnect the power output to the USB connector. ............. 61
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`12. Claim 12. The USB adapter of claim 1, further
`comprising an auxiliary USB connector. ................................. 61
`13. Claim 13. The USB adapter of claim 12, wherein one or
`more data lines of the auxiliary USB connector are
`coupled to one or more data lines of the USB connector
`via the identification subsystem. .............................................. 62
`14. Claim 14. The USB adapter of claim 12, wherein the
`power converter is operable to generate a second power
`output that is coupled to the auxiliary USB connector. ........... 63
`15. Claim 16. The USB adapter of claim 1, wherein the
`power converter comprises at least one component
`selected from the group consisting of: switching
`converter, transformer, DC source, voltage regulator,
`linear regulator and rectifier. .................................................... 65
`16. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 66
`a.
`17[Pre]: A method for providing energy to a
`mobile device using a USB adapter that includes a
`USB connector for coupling the USB adapter to
`the mobile device, comprising: ...................................... 66
`17[a]: receiving a power input from a power
`socket; ............................................................................ 67
`17[b]: generating a regulated DC power output
`from the power input; .................................................... 67
`17[c]: generating an identification signal that is
`configured to indicate to the mobile device that the
`power socket is not a USB host or hub; ........................ 67
`17[d]: providing the identification signal on one or
`more data pins of the USB connector; and .................... 67
`17[e]: providing the power output on one or more
`power pins of the USB connector. ................................. 68
`17. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 68
`a.
`18[Pre]: A Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) adapter
`for providing a source of power to a mobile device
`through a USB port, comprising: ................................... 68
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`c.
`
`d.
`
`b.
`
`18[a]: means for receiving energy from a power
`socket; ............................................................................ 68
`18[b]: means for regulating the received energy
`from the power socket to generate a power output; ...... 69
`18[c]: means for generating an identification signal
`that indicates to the mobile device that the power
`socket is not a USB hub or host; and ............................. 69
`18[d]: means for coupling the power output and
`identification signal to the mobile device. ..................... 69
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 69
`X. MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. §42.8 ............................................. 69
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ................................... 69
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ............................................ 70
`C.
`Lead/Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ................................ 70
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ..................................... 71
`XI. GROUNDS FOR STANDING – 37 C.F.R. §42.104(A) ............................. 71
`XII. FEES – 37 C.F.R. §42.15(A) ........................................................................ 72
`
`e.
`
`v
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Allergen USA, INC. v. Prollenium US Inc.,
`No. 1:20-cv-00104, Dkt. No. 34 (D. Del. July 16, 2020) ..................................... 4
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ............................................... 3
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 (PTAB June 15, 2020) ............................................... 5
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017)............................................. 7
`HP Inc. v. Neodron LTD,
`IPR2020-00459, Paper 17 (PTAB Sept. 14, 2020)............................................... 5
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC,
`IPR 2020-00319 .................................................................................................... 8
`Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC,
`IPR 2019-01252 .................................................................................................... 7
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 30
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ........................................ 30, 34, 35, 36
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group5 Trucking
`LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ............................................... 3
`Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP,
`140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020) .......................................................................................... 7
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`IPR2016-00422, Institution Decision (P.T.A.B. July 6, 2016) .......................... 31
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Vudu, Inc.,
`No. 1:19-cv-00183, Dkt. No. 72 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2020) .................................... 4
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) ................................................................... 33
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §102(a) .................................................................................................... 11
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) .............................................................................................. 11, 28
`35 U.S.C. §103 ..................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) .............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. §112 ......................................................................................................... 31
`35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6 ............................................................................................ 32, 33
`35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. §315(e)(2) .................................................................................................. 6
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 8
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(B) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit List
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,239,111 (the “’111 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent File History of the ’111 Patent (the “’111 File
`History”)
`Declaration of Dr. Jacob Baker regarding U.S. Patent No.
`7,239,111 (“Baker”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Jacob Baker
`U.S. Patent No. 6,130,518 (“Gabeheart”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/1215878
`(“Veselic”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,936,936 (the “’936 Patent”)
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/273,021 (the “’021
`provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/330,486 (the “’486
`provisional”)
`Universal Serial Bus Specification, Revision 1.1, September 23,
`1998 (“USB 1.1”)
`Universal Serial Bus Specification, Revision 2.0, April 27, 2000
`(“USB 2.0”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,531,845 (“Kerai”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,738 (“Shiga”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0135766
`(“Zyskowski”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,790 (“Casebolt”)
`Cypress CY7C63722/23 CY7C63742/43 enCoRe™ USB
`Combination Low-Speed USB & PS/2 Peripheral Controller, by
`Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, published May 25, 2000
`(“Cypress”)
`Japanese Patent Application No. 2000-165513A (“Morita”)
`Amended Complaint, Fundamental Innovation Systems Int’l LLC
`v. TCT Mobile (US) Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-00552-CFC (D. Del.
`Sep. 11, 2020) (“Complaint”)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`TCT Mobile (US), Inc.; TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc.; Huizhou TCL
`
`Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.; and TCL Communication, Inc. (“Petitioners”) file
`
`this petition for inter partes review of claims 1-14, and 16-18 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,239,111 (the “’111 Patent”) on the grounds that they
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`The Challenged Claims relate to an adapter or charger that uses industry
`
`standard Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) ports and connectors to provide power to a
`
`mobile device. Providing power through USB ports and connectors was well
`
`understood and routine by the priority date of the ’111 Patent and taught in the USB
`
`Specification. The Challenged Claims purport to “invent” a charger that no longer
`
`maintains requirements for enumeration, a series of communication steps between
`
`an USB host or hub and a connected device, imposed on USB interfaces by the
`
`existing USB Specification to change a port from low-power to high-power. The
`
`Challenged Claims essentially do nothing more than allow a charger to provide
`
`power through a disabled USB interface where back and forth communications
`
`(enumeration) with a connected mobile device are not possible. Rather, in order to
`
`indicate to the mobile device that the adapter does not follow the USB Specification,
`
`and thus cannot communicate with the mobile device, the Challenged Claims
`
`1
`
`

`

`disclose an identification signal, a signal that identifies communication is disabled
`
`as taught in the USB Specification.
`
`The Examiner who allowed the Challenged Claims was not made aware of
`
`the extensive prior art that already discloses USB adapters that sends identification
`
`signals to indicate the absence of a typical USB host or hub. For example, Japanese
`
`Patent Application No. 2000-165513A (“Morita”), titled “Charger,” discloses a USB
`
`charger for charging a mobile device, a mobile videophone device, with
`
`identification signal that can indicate the absence of a typical USB host or hub. None
`
`of the references that form the grounds of this Petition were disclosed to the
`
`Examiner during prosecution.
`
`Because there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with
`
`respect to these claims, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board institute inter
`
`partes review.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF CHALLENGE 37 C.F.R. §42.104(B)
`
`Petitioners requests that the Board review and cancel claims 1-3, 6-8, and 16-
`
`18 of the’111 Patent based on the following grounds.
`
`Ground Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1
`
`1-14, 16-18
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a) Morita and the
`knowledge of a
`POSITA
`
`2
`
`

`

`III.
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE GRANTED; DISCRETIONARY
`DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE
`Petitioners have established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits
`
`and all other requirements for IPR have been met. The Board should institute IPR.
`
`As explained below, the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny
`
`institution under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) or 325(d). If the Board considers exercising
`
`its discretion to deny institution, however, Petitioner respectfully requests leave to
`
`file a reply to address any discretionary denial arguments made by Patent Owner in
`
`its preliminary response.
`
`A.
`
`The Apple/Fintiv Factors Support Institution
`
`There is a parallel district court proceeding involving the ’111 Patent before
`
`Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware. Ex. 1018. The complaint was filed in
`
`April 23, 2020. However, the Apple/Fintiv factors support institution despite the
`
`existence of the Delaware litigation. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019,
`
`Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020).
`
`First, potential for a district court stay, is neutral or weighs in favor of
`
`institution. Neither party has requested a stay,1 so at worst this factor is neutral
`
`because the Board “will not attempt to predict” how the district court will proceed.
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group5 Trucking LLC, IPR2019-
`
`1 Petitioner does intend to move for a stay of the Delaware district court case.
`
`3
`
`

`

`01393, Paper 24 at 7 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative). Congress, however,
`
`intended for district courts to be liberal in granting stays pending PTAB proceedings,
`
`especially in cases where petitioners moved quickly after service of a complaint. 157
`
`Cong. Rec. S1363 (Mar. 8, 2011) (Sen. Schumer) (Congress placed “a very heavy
`
`thumb on the scale in favor of a stay being granted”). Given that Petitioners have
`
`moved expeditiously (see factor 2 discussion below), this factor favors institution.
`
`Furthermore, Judge Connolly has consistently granted stays in similar patent
`
`litigation cases, especially those where the petitions are instituted. See, e.g., Allergen
`
`USA, INC. v. Prollenium US Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00104, Dkt. No. 34 (D. Del. July 16,
`
`2020); Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Vudu, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00183, Dkt. No. 72 (D. Del.
`
`Mar. 26, 2020).
`
`Second, the proximity of the trial date to the final written decision, weighs in
`
`favor of institution. The Court has scheduled a Markman hearing for June 23, 2021.
`
`Before the time that the Court issues a Markman decision, the PTAB will likely have
`
`already made an institution decision. If the PTAB institutes trial, Judge Connolly
`
`consistently grants stays in that instance. See id. Even in the unlikely case that Judge
`
`Connolly does not grant a stay, the trial date is scheduled for October 17, 2022. This
`
`is several months after the PTAB’s expected final written decision based on this
`
`Petition’s filing date of December 31, 2020, which would tentatively calendar an
`
`4
`
`

`

`institution date of approximately July 1, 2021 and final written decision date of
`
`approximately July 1, 2022 (depending upon the accorded filing date).
`
`Third, investment in the parallel proceeding, weighs in favor of institution.
`
`Discovery will still be in the early stages, with the deadline not until December 17,
`
`2021. It is unlikely that any fact depositions will have taken place before the
`
`institution decision. Further, as stated above, it is unlikely that the district court will
`
`have issued a Markman ruling by the time of the institution decision, and little to no
`
`Court resources will have been devoted to analyzing prior art invalidity issues.
`
`Again, the parallel district court litigation is likely to be stayed once the present
`
`Petition is instituted.
`
`Furthermore, as part of a holistic analysis, the Board considers the speed with
`
`which the petitioner acted. Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00156,
`
`Paper 10 at 11-12 (PTAB June 15, 2020). In cases where the petitioner acted
`
`diligently and without meaningful delay, as here, any investment of the parties in the
`
`parallel district court litigation is mitigated. HP Inc. v. Neodron LTD, IPR2020-
`
`00459, Paper 17 at 40 (PTAB Sept. 14, 2020). Here, Petitioners filed this Petition
`
`within about four months of the Answer date, and roughly two months after Patent
`
`Owner served preliminary infringement contentions. Such diligence favors
`
`institution.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Fourth, overlap of issues, is neutral or weighs for institution. The Petition
`
`challenges claims that are not asserted in the district court action. And while the
`
`petition also challenges the same claims as the parallel district court proceeding,
`
`there is a high likelihood that Judge Connolly grants a stay upon institution. In the
`
`unlikely instance where a stay is not granted, a final written decision will still issue
`
`before the beginning of trial. The final written decision, once issued, will trigger
`
`estoppel for in the district court litigation for grounds that were raised or reasonably
`
`could have been raised. See 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(2).
`
`Fifth, whether the parties are the same, weighs in favor of institution. The
`
`parties with respect to this Petition are the same as those engaged in the parallel
`
`district court case.
`
`Finally, other circumstances strongly favor institution. Petitioners advance a
`
`targeted Petition with one ground centered on a prior art reference that has never
`
`been submitted to the Board previously. The strength of the present Petition strongly
`
`weighs in favor of institution. The ’111 Patent has been asserted against several
`
`large electronics companies such as Belkin, Lenovo, and Petitioners. Patent Owners
`
`assert that USB adapters, which are ubiquitous, and the mobile devices they charge
`
`infringe the ’111 Patent and related patents. Given the substantial impact that the
`
`’111 Patent and related patents could have on the mobile device industry, it is in the
`
`public interest to address invalidity, especially under new prior art never before
`
`6
`
`

`

`submitted to the Board. And as the Supreme Court recently explained, there is a
`
`significant public interest against “leaving bad patents enforceable.” Thryv, Inc. v.
`
`Click-To-Call Techs., LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367, 1374 (2020).
`
`B.
`
`The General Plastics Factors Support Institution
`
`The General Plastics factors support institution despite earlier IPRs being
`
`filed by other, unrelated entities. General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon
`
`Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017); see also
`
`Section X.B (Related Matters). First, the current Petitioner (and the real parties-in-
`
`interest) are different from the prior petitioners; nor is there any relation between the
`
`current and prior petitioners. Id. Second, because when the earlier petitions were
`
`filed the current Petitioner had not been sued or provided notice of alleged
`
`infringement, the current Petitioner did not know of the prior art in this Petition when
`
`the earlier petitions were filed (nor did it have any reason to search for the prior art).
`
`Id. Third, while the preliminary responses and decisions from the earlier IPRs did
`
`issue before the filing of the current Petition, this timing is the result of Patent Owner
`
`not suing the current Petitioner until after said issuance and is thus not the result of
`
`current Petitioner’s delay. Id.; Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR 2019-
`
`01252, Paper 7 at 8-9 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019). Fourth, Petitioner was diligent in
`
`filing the current petition as well as promptly moving to file petitions on the other
`
`asserted patents after receiving Patent Owner’s selection of claims. Section X.B;
`
`7
`
`

`

`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC, IPR 2020-00319, Paper 15 at
`
`13 (PTAB June 23, 2020).
`
`C.
`
`The Factors Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Support Institution
`
`The factors under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) also support institution. The primary
`
`reference, Morita, was not before the Examiner during prosecution and was not
`
`asserted in any of the previous IPRs involving the patent at issue. And the prior art
`
`establishing that using a logic high value on the USB data lines was a known
`
`identification signal, see Sections VI.A-B, was also not before the Examiner.
`
`Indeed, Section IV.B explains that Applicant was able to obtain allowance by
`
`amending the claims to include limitations requiring an identification signal, e.g.,
`
`logic high value on the data line (an SE1 signal). But this Petition shows that using
`
`such a signal state was not only known but was a natural and obvious selection
`
`among the finite options of the USB interface. See, e.g., Sections VI.A-B,
`
`VIII.A.1.e.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’111 PATENT
`A.
`Disclosure of the ’111 Patent
`
`The ’111 Patent (Ex. 1001) generally relates to “[a]n adapter for providing a
`
`source of power to a mobile device through an industry standard port.” ’111 Patent,
`
`2:3-4. The ’111 Patent states that this can be achieved by the transmission of an
`
`identification signal from the adapter to the mobile device. Id., 6:23-42; 9:3-8.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Specifically, the ’111 Patent discloses an identification signal, such as the
`
`application of “voltages on both the D+ and D- lines of the USB connector [that] are
`
`greater than 2 volts,” which allows the mobile device to determine that “the device
`
`connected to the USB connector 54 is not a typical USB host or hub and that a USB
`
`adapter 100 has been detected.” Id., 9:35-38. Once the mobile device receives the
`
`identification signal, the mobile device can draw power from the USB adapter, while
`
`bypassing the USB handshaking process, i.e., enumeration, imposed by the USB
`
`Specification. Id., 9:39-42.
`
`Figure 2, reproduced below, is a schematic diagram of the disclosed USB
`
`adaptor, 100, coupled to an exemplary mobile device, 10. Id., 6:55-57. The adapter,
`
`100, uses USB connector, 102, to charge mobile device, 10, through USB connector,
`
`54. Id., 7:4-8. The USB adapter, 100, receives power through plug unit 106 from
`
`standard power sockets used in North America, UK, and other power sockets. Id.,
`
`7:4-8, Figure 2. Power converter, 104, receives energy from a power socket and
`
`converts it to +5V to provide energy output to the mobile device on USB pins VBUS
`
`and GND. Id., 7:12-26. The ‘111 patent also states “Optionally, the USB adapter
`
`100 could also transfer energy from the power converter 104 to the auxiliary USB
`
`connector 112 thereby providing a device coupled to the auxiliary USB connector
`
`112 with power.” Id., 8:60-64. In other words, the USB adapter taught in the ‘111
`
`9
`
`

`

`patent can provide power via USB connectors to both the mobile device connected
`
`to USB connector 102 and another device connected to USB connector 112.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’111 Patent
`
`The ’111 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 11/175,885, filed on
`
`July 6, 2005. ’111 File History (Ex. 1002), 96.
`
`10
`
`

`

`On October 20, 2005, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6-18 under 35
`
`U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,130,518 (“Gabehart”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`and rejected claims 3 and 5 as being obvious over Gabehart under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
`
`Id., 85-89.
`
`In the response filed on January 20, 2006, the Applicants traversed the
`
`rejections without making amendments to the claims. Applicants argued that
`
`Gabehart does not disclose transmitting an identification signal that is configured to
`
`indicate that the power source is not a USB host or hub. Id., 81-84.
`
`In the non-final rejection dated April 4, 2004, the Examiner rejected claims 1,
`
`2, 4, and 6-18 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as anticipated by U.S. Patent Application
`
`2004/0215878 (“Veselic”) (Ex. 1006) and rejected claims 3 and 5 as being obvious
`
`over Veselic under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). Id., 75-77.
`
`In the response dated June 15, 2006, the Applicants noted that the application
`
`claims priority to two provisional applications, the latest of which was dated October
`
`23, 2001. Applicants argued that because Veselic has an earliest possible priority
`
`date of June 11, 2003, Veselic is not prior art. Id., 54-55.
`
`In the non-final rejection dated August 24, 2006, the Examiner provisionally
`
`rejected claims 1-18 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double
`
`patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of co-pending Application No.
`
`10/087,628 (now U.S. 6,936,936) (Ex. 1007). Id., 44-47. Applicant subsequently
`
`11
`
`

`

`filed a terminal disclaimer on November 22, 2006. Id., 42. The terminal disclaimer
`
`was approved on February 20, 2007. Notices of Allowances and Allowability
`
`followed on March 8, 2007. Id., 26-29. No reasons for allowance were indicated.
`
`Priority Date
`C.
`The ’111 patent claims priority through a series of continuations to two
`
`provisional applications: (1) the ’021 provisional (Ex. 1008), filed March 1, 2001;
`
`and (2) the ’486 provisional (Ex. 1009), filed October 23, 2001. Thus, the earliest
`
`potential priority date is March 1, 2001.2
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the subject matter of the
`
`’111 Patent would have had either (i) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer science, or a related field, plus 3-5 years of experience in design of systems
`
`with Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) or equivalent buses that follow the USB 2.0 and
`
`earlier specification, or (ii) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or a related field, plus 1-2 years of experience in design of systems with
`
`USB or equivalent buses that follow the USB 2.0 and earlier specification at the time
`
`of the ’111 Patent’s priority date. Along with this petition, Petitioner submits the
`
`2 The Patent Owner in the district court case has asserted that the claims are
`entitled to the October 23, 2001 priority date. Regardless, the prior art cited herein
`i