Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 33
`Entered: July 15, 2022
`
`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.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INTERNTAIONAL LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`___________
`
`Held: June 7, 2022
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, JON B. TORNQUIST, and
`ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 33
`Entered: July 15, 2022
`
`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.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INTERNTAIONAL LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`___________
`
`Held: June 7, 2022
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, JON B. TORNQUIST, and
`ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JEFFREY JOHNSON, ESQ.
`JASON LANG, ESQ.
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLC
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`HONG ANNITA ZHONG, ESQ.
`Irell & Manella, LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars
`Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90087
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, June 7,
`2022, commencing at 9:00 a.m., EDT, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE PESLAK: We’re here for IPR 2021- 00599. I’m
`
`Judge Peslak. With me are Judge Kokoski and Judge Tornquist.
`Would counsel for Petitioner please state your name and firm
`affiliation for the record.
`
`MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. Jeffrey Johnson from
`Orrick and with me I have Jason Lang.
`
`MR. LANG: Good morning, Your Honors.
`
`JUDGE PESLAK: Patent Owner, please state your name
`and firm affiliation for the record.
`
`MS. ZHONG: Good morning, Your Honors. My name is
`Annita Zhong from Irell & Manella representing Patent Owner.
`Together with me today is my colleague, Jason Sheasby S-H-E-
`A-S-B-Y. Also joining is Mr. Paul Riley, the client
`representative.
`
`JUDGE PESLAK: Okay. Good morning, Ms. Zhong. Our
`primary concern today during the hearing is your right to be
`heard. If at any time during the proceeding you encounter
`technical or other difficulties that undermine your ability to
`adequately present your case, please let us know immediately by
`contacting the team member who provided you with the
`connection information today. If one of the judges or court
`reporter gets disconnected or has other technical difficulties you
`may have to stop and reset things. When you’re not speaking,
`please mute yourself, also recognize sometimes there’s a time
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`delay when people speak so we want to be careful to avoid
`speaking over each other so the court reporter can make an
`accurate transcript of today’s hearing.
`Please identify yourself each time you speak. This helps
`the court reporter prepare an accurate transcript. The transcript
`constitutes the official record in these proceedings and just as if
`we are doing this live and in person at the Patent Office, the use
`of any other recording devices is prohibited. We have the entire
`record including the parties’ demonstrative exhibits. When
`you’re referring to a demonstrative paper or other exhibit, please
`do so clearly and explicitly by slide or page number. Please also
`pause a second or two after identifying it to provide us time to
`find it. Please be aware that members of the public may be
`listening to this oral hearing. I’ll note that neither party
`contacted us pursuant to the Hearing Order to indicate that any
`confidential information will be discussed today.
`I’ll be keeping track of the time for the hearing and we’ll
`give each side a warning when you’re getting close to the end of
`your time. Each side will receive 60 minutes of argument time
`pursuant to the Hearing Order. Counsel for Petitioner, do you
`wish to reserve any time for rebuttal?
`MR. JOHNSON: Yes, Your Honor, 20 minutes.
`JUDGE PESLAK: Okay. So you have 40 minutes. You
`can begin when ready.
`MR. LANG: Thank you, Your Honors. Jason Lang for
`Petitioner. We will jump ahead to slide 3 and I just want to start
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`with providing a summary of the single ground at issue and again
`the single remaining issue, and turning to slide 4.
`The petition advanced a single obviousness ground, Morita
`in the knowledge of a POSITA and, Your Honors, you will hear a
`lot today that attempts to limit this ground simply to Morita --
`simply to bodily incorporation of the USB specification. But
`make no mistake, the petition demonstrated the ground with
`Morita in view of the knowledge of a POSITA. Patent Owner
`mounts a single attack against this ground, namely that Morita
`does not render obvious configured to detect the identification
`signal.
`Jumping ahead to slide 6. I just want to start with
`providing a little bit of context about the ‘586 patent in
`representative claim 1. Now the specification describes, you
`know, just backing up kind of two different aspects. One, there
`is this adaptor and that sends an identification signal.
`Separately, there is a mobile device that detects the
`identification signal and you see here on slide 6 referring to the
`‘586 patent, column 9, it detects that signal, for example by
`detecting the presence of voltage on various lines. That’s the
`tactic, is there a voltage on the lines and as you’ll see the
`challenged claims is about the mobile device, it’s about
`detecting. What is not claimed is the adaptor, what is not
`claimed is sending an identification signal.
`Turning to slide 7. The Board in the Institution decision
`adopted the parties’ District Court construction which is now the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`construction in this proceeding of identification signal and that
`construction is a signal that identifies a power source type.
`JUDGE PESLAK: Mr. Lang, this is Judge Peslak. What
`does power source type mean? This construction sort of begs
`that question is, what is -- how should we, what does power
`source type mean in this construction?
`MR. LANG: Sure, Your Honor, and the specification
`describes that very broadly. One example of that is here on slide
`7. It describes that the identification signal indicates or
`identifies that the power source is not subject to the limits
`opposed by the USB. So a signal that would say the type of
`power source, that it’s in line with the USB spec, that it’s not in
`line with the USB spec. That is the example.
`Claim 11 recites that the identification signal identifies that
`a power connection is available. So one subset of this term and
`the meaning of it is simply that a power source is available.
`Those are some of the examples in the specification, and Your
`Honors --
`JUDGE PESLAK: So you’re saying that at least in claim
`11 that the identification signal doesn’t have anything to do with
`the USB spec, it’s just any power source?
`MR. LANG: That’s right, and I think that’s supported by
`this portion of the ‘586 patent as well simply saying that it is not
`in line with the USB spec or on the contrary that is in line with
`the USB spec as identification of the power source type, and as
`you’ll see when we get into the references this is the exact type
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`of identification signal that is certainly present as in Casebolt
`and what the full record demonstrates the exact same type in
`Kerai as well.
`Turning to slide 8, Your Honors. There has been no
`dispute that this identification signal we just talked about what it
`identifies, a power source type, but what form may it be in. One
`example in the specification relevant today is a signal referred to
`as a SE1 signal. That signal on a USB connection you have two
`power lines and two data lines. The SE1 signal is simply the two
`data lines being logically high, that is a example of the
`identification signal in the ‘586 patent that is not contested.
`That is what you’ll be hearing about a lot today, this SE1 signal.
`Now importantly, turning to slide 9, claim 1 recites a
`mobile device. So going back to what the patent describes you
`have the adaptor, you have the mobile device. Representative
`claim 1 is directed to the mobile device, not the adaptor. What’s
`more it’s very clear that it has nothing to do with sending a
`identification signal. The claim language here is wherein the
`mobile device is configured to detect the identification signal.
`Notably, claim 1 doesn’t even say detect. It simply says
`configures to detect.
`JUDGE TORNQUIST: Counsel, this is Judge Tornquist. I
`have a question about your combination. In your grounds, does
`the mobile device need to recognize what the identification
`signal is or just detect that something came through that is an
`identification signal?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`
`MR. LANG: Absolutely not. It doesn’t have to take any
`action upon receiving it and, Your Honor, you saw in the
`specification detecting the presence, the voltages on those two
`lines. Once you detect -- and the claim here you just have to be
`configured to detect it, so if you’re configured to detect those
`two voltages on those lines that is detecting. The patent could
`have claimed that you take some type of action. Upon detection
`you might do something after you detect it, the claim is dead
`silent to that.
`JUDGE TORNQUIST: Okay. So we wouldn’t need to find
`that one of skill in the art would modify or do anything to Morita
`to send for example Casebolt’s identification signal?
`MR. LANG; Absolutely not, Your Honor. This is a case
`where they drafted a broad claim frankly and they’re stuck with
`it. They decided to claim effectively just about a third of what
`the spec describes. Not sending it, they did describe detecting
`but they did not claim taking any action upon it and when I get
`to a summary of the Institution decision that was cited by the
`Board in the Institution decision that Patent Owner does not
`contend that the claims require that you take any action upon
`receiving it and that was never contested. In fact, I’ll get to Dr.
`Fernald which is the Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony and he
`makes that absolutely clear there’s no dispute that the claims
`require doing anything with the signal.
`JUDGE TORNQUIST: Okay. So looking at all your papers
`would you say maybe 80 percent of all the briefing is irrelevant
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`to exactly what you’re trying to argue?
`MR. LANG: Absolutely, Your Honor. You’re going to
`hear today all of these arguments about the adaptor sending a
`signal, about that the -- from the Patent Owner -- that the Morita
`phone would have to do something with this signal. It would
`need smart circuitry. The claim doesn’t require that. It says
`configured to detect. Once it is configured to detect such that it
`can detect that signal and there’s no dispute Morita can detect
`the SE1 signal, that’s all that the claim requires.
`JUDGE TORNQUIST: Okay.
`MR. LANG: I will just briefly note, Your Honors, I will
`focus on claim 1 and claim 8 doesn’t require sending a signal as
`well. In the Institution decision at page 25 the Board noted that
`Patent Owner has not made any contentions specific to claim 8,
`nor has it in the proceeding after Institution.
`Now, I will jump ahead to slide 11 and I just want to
`briefly provide some context leading up to the Institution. Now
`the petition, and this is important and demonstrated that Morita
`is already configured to detect SE1 signals. Why? It is an error
`condition but in the USB you detect this error condition.
`Turning to slide 12. The petition also demonstrated that
`these SE1 signals were known identification signals. The best
`example of that is in Casebolt. What Casebolt discloses is that
`you use a SE1 signal to tell the difference between a USB and a
`PS2 adaptor and I’ll get into the evidence but that’s notable
`because both of those are different power source type, they have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`different current levels.
`Another, I think the second best example of an SE1
`identification signal is Kerai and there has been an important
`development in this trial after Institution about Kerai’s
`disclosures which is notable and confirmed it too is an SE1
`identification signal which I have some slides forthcoming on.
`And, Your Honor, turning to slide 13 and addressing your
`question about the 80 percent. The way that the petition was
`structured was that it says that the Patent Owner is going to
`argue that this adaptor needs to send an SE1 signal. We’ll go
`ahead and cover that. But it expressly said that argument would
`fail and the first reason it would fail is the claims don’t recite
`any deponent about sending the identification signal. Again, it
`only has to be configured to detect and you’re right, most of
`today unfortunately is about something that’s not even relevant
`to the claims.
`Turning to slide 14, and this gets into the 80 percent is that,
`well, if we’re going to go down this road and saying that you
`would need to send a signal, well that certainly would be
`obvious. When there’s no host in the system, the SE1 signal
`which the trial demonstrated was a option for signaling a high
`charging functionality, there’s good reason and good motivation
`to use that signal and the claim actually said that.
`Turning to slide 15. The preliminary response argument, I
`have that noted here because the Patent Owner’s response is
`simply a regurgitation of these same arguments. They already
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`presented the Board, the Patent Owner, with, well, they said the
`Morita adaptor if it’s sending an SE1 signal it would render it
`inoperable because of this charge only mode. They said, well, if
`the adaptor is sending an SE1 signal it would render it, you
`know, inoperable because phone engages in USB communication.
`Well, the adaptor sends the SE1 signal but there’s other options.
`You could do it other ways too. They said, well, you’re talking
`about hindsight for this adaptor to send the SE1 signal.
`The common thread through all this, Your Honors, is this is
`all focused on the Morita adaptor. It’s focused on an unclaimed
`element. Once you’re configured to detect, it doesn’t matter if
`anything sends it. Once you’re configured to detect it doesn’t
`matter if there’s other communication going on, or if they’re
`disrupted. All that the claim requires is that you’re configured
`to detect the signal.
`And turning to slide 16. In the Institution decision the
`Board pointed that out. They No. 1 said, well, the claims don’t
`require sending any identification signal. In fact, all that’s
`required is that you’re configured to detect. Claim 1 doesn’t
`even require that you detect. The representative claim also does
`not require taking any action upon detection. You had an earlier
`question about that, Your Honor. This was specifically pointed
`out in the Institution decision.
`Turning to slide 17. Your Honors also pointed out there is
`no dispute that Morita is already configured to detect an SE1
`signal. These points are still not contested. These points are
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`still dispositive, Your Honors.
`Jumping ahead to slide 18. The Board also found that
`Casebolt uses a SE1 signal as an identification signal. Now, so
`if we just step back and look at what we have here we have a
`SE1 signal that is identification signal. We have a claim that
`only requires that you’re configured to detect that signal. It
`doesn’t require that you receive it, that you do anything with it
`and it was instituted because that’s all the claims required. You
`have a device configured to detect something, you have the thing
`over that you’re configured to detect. That’s it, that’s what the
`claims require.
`Turning to slide 19. You’re going to hear the same
`arguments that were dismissed in the Institution decision and the
`reason those were dismissed at that phase in the record has done
`nothing to demonstrate otherwise is that these arguments are
`related to the Morita charger. They’re not sufficiently connected
`to the claim language. The contentions don’t address that the
`claims do not require SE1 to be generated.
`Now, I’ll jump ahead, Your Honor, to slide 20. Turning to
`slide 21 addressing the arguments post-Institution. Now, this has
`not changed. It’s still agreed upon that the claims do not require
`sending a identification signal. This is Dr. Fernald’s testimony
`and what’s critically notable about this is his statement,
`“That doesn’t mean the signal is always being sent of
`course, but if it is sent it’s configured to detect it.”
`If it is sent, that is the claim language configured to detect.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`It doesn’t have to be sent. Now if it is sent it has to be
`configured to detect it.
`Turning to slide 22 and again Dr. Fernald confirmed that
`Morita is already configured to detect the SE1 signal. He said,
`he described what would happen if Morita’s phone received it. It
`would go into reset. Why is that? Because the USB
`specification treats the SE1 signal tradition (phonetic) when SE1
`signaling is observed. So the SE1 signal is detected, it’s
`undoubtedly configured to detect it.
`Turning to slide 23. This, Your Honors, is on Casebolt.
`This was the reference that the Board already found disclosed an
`SE1 as an identification signal. The record merely confirms that.
`Patent Owner itself stated that the SE1 signals in Casebolt and
`Cypress are for telling PS/2 and USB interfaces apart. Why is
`that notable? Because a PS/2 interface and a USB interface has
`different power source types. On the left is a PS/2 power type.
`The power supply is described in the top left there and it says the
`following is a list of power provided for the system components.
`The Kerai keyboard gets 275 milliamps. That’s PS/2 power
`supply. USB on the other hand as shown on the right and this
`will be discussed subsequently. There’s effectively a high and a
`low power for an option and you’re talking about either 100 or
`500 milliamps.
`JUDGE PESLAK: Mr. Lang, this is Judge Peslak. Doesn’t
`the PS/2 power type if you’re looking at 275 milliamps, doesn’t
`that overlap though with the 100 and 500 in the USB spec?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`
`MR. LANG: It’s in the middle. The USB spec doesn’t
`even have a 275. So not only is the current different but the
`further difference is that the USB is configurable such that it can
`be 100 mAs and in fact it defaults to 100 milliamps and then you
`could go up to 500 milliamps. But it’s either like 100 or 500. If
`you see there it’s configurable. PS/2’s not like that. It’s just a
`275 setting. So not only are the magnitudes different but the fact
`that the USB is configurable with a low and a high power option
`is different.
`JUDGE PESLAK: So your argument that these -- that the
`PS/2 versus a USB have different power levels but you’re not
`necessarily detecting the power levels?
`MR. LANG: If they -- our argument is that, and which was
`found is that it’s a different, the SE1 signal in Casebolt and
`Cypress identifies a power source type and it either identifies a
`PS/2 power source type or a USB power source type and that’s
`undisputed. This SE1 signal will tell you whether it’s PS/2 or
`whether it’s USB and those are two different power source types
`so it identifies a particular power source type one or the other
`and that signal that says it’s an SE1 signal and as already
`discussed it’s just undisputed that Morita is configured to detect
`the SE1 signal and that’s all that the claims require but it has to
`do -- does the claim have to do anything in response to that? No,
`the claim doesn’t require that. Does Morita even have to be
`modified to do this? No, it’s already configured to detect the
`SE1 signal and this is a central issue. If the claim said, Your
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`Honor, once you detect the signal then you do some type of
`configuration to take some type of action, the arguments would
`all be different today. But the claims do not say that. Did that
`answer your question, Your Honor?
`JUDGE PESLAK: Yes, I understand your position.
`MR. LANG: Thank you. And I will get into, Your Honor,
`to the extent the claim were to require that the petition does
`present an obviousness theory on how the SE1 signal in Morita
`would be used that I’ll get to.
`I want to briefly address Kerai because there has been an
`important development during the trial with respect to Kerai and
`this is on slide 24. Now Kerai has a system, and in figure 3 they
`label 22, 23, 25, 26, they describe these as effectively the USB
`interface and what it’s doing is it’s from these lines it’s
`harvesting power and you see 50s, those are elements that
`basically connect those lines to a capacitor 51 and it will use that
`current from those lines to harvest power.
`And turning to slide 25. What Kerai says is that the data
`lines on the serial connection are held high when the connection
`is inactive. When the two data lines on a USB interface are high,
`that’s a SE1 signal and I’ll get to how Patent Owner has
`misinterpreted this line here in a second. But when those two
`lines are high what Kerai describes is detecting the state of those
`and then permitting current to flow into each of the capacitors
`and Patent Owner simply disagrees that it says these two data
`lines are high, and the reason it disagreed with that and created
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`some confusion, Your Honors, is turning to slide 26 they argue
`that, well, in Kerai you’re only harvesting power when you’re
`having data communications and therefore both lines can’t be
`high because in data communications only one line is high at a
`time.
`It is true during data communication one line is high at a
`time but what Patent Owner did not explain and has never
`explained is once it realized that what Kerai discloses on column
`1 is that you can harvest power when there is no data
`communication and it says that you can use this charging circuit
`or you can disconnect the charging circuit and when does it say
`you can disconnect it? It says you can disconnect it on the onset
`of a communication over the data line, you know, when this is a
`source of power. So they’re saying you can be harvesting power
`from this but then you can stop at the onset of a communication.
`So you can be harvesting power before there’s any of these data
`communications going on and turning back to slide 25 that’s
`what Kerai is saying. They’re saying, hey, when there’s no data
`communications when the thing is inactive, it’s known in those
`types of situations that you could just put those lines high and
`you can do that because there’s no data communications.
`That’s the SE1 signal and when you do that, jumping ahead
`to slide 27, it’s undisputed that that’s effectively that you’re
`identifying a power source type because, as Dr. Fernald
`admitted, if both of them are high you’re going to harvest power
`from both of them. So what you’ve identified is No. 1, that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`there’s a power source available in the data lines, No. 2, you’re
`identifying the type because it’s power from both lines as
`opposed to one line.
`In the interest of time, Your Honor, I’ll jump ahead to slide
`30 and that’s all the claims require, what we just talked about.
`Just to sum it up, there’s no dispute the claims don’t require
`sending an identification signal. Dr. Fernald’s testimony was
`very telling there. The claim says that you configure to detect, it
`didn’t send. There’s no dispute that SE1 is described as
`identification signal in the ‘586 patent. There’s no dispute that
`Morita is already configured to detect this identification signal,
`the SE1 signal. Certainly, Casebolt, Cypress and Kerai all
`disclose an SE1 signal as identification signal. So what you
`have there is Morita that is configured to detect an SE1 signal
`and over here you have Casebolt, you have Kerai, Cypress, where
`SE1 signal is identification signal. It is Morita’s configured to
`detect this thing over here. That’s all the claims require. They
`don’t require sending it. They don’t require sending it and doing
`something with it. They just require identification signal being
`configured to detect it and you see, Your Honors, that all their
`arguments fall away when you focus properly on the claim
`language.
`Turning to slide 31, Patent Owner said well, you’d have to
`modify Morita to detect the SE1 signal. Not so. It’s undisputed
`that Morita is already configured to detect SE1 signal and, again,
`the Board already found correctly that the Morita adaptor doesn’t
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`need to send a signal and the Morita phone doesn’t need to take
`any action upon receiving the signal.
`Turning to slide 32. Patent Owner argues, well, the SE1
`signal would disrupt USB’s communications and render it
`inoperable. That’s not true but it’s of no moment. It’s neither
`here, it’s neither there because, again, the claims don’t -- if
`you’re configured to detect it it doesn’t say anything else about
`whether USB communications are disrupted or not.
`Turning to slide 33. They argue that it would be
`unnecessary to send an SE1 signal to indicate it’s a high power
`charger. Again, that’s not true. Again, it’s of no moment. It’s
`neither here, it’s neither there because it doesn’t have to be sent,
`it just has to configured to detect but it would be obvious, as I’ll
`get into shortly, to send it as well.
`They bring up a hindsight argument that, well, in effect
`what they’re saying is that all of the complications of sending
`and using the signal are not addressed. Again, the claims do not
`require that.
`Now, the alternative which, Your Honors, does take up
`quite a bit of the briefing is that, okay, let’s assume that the
`claim did say that you send a identification signal, that you had
`to receive it, you had to do something with it. That certainly
`would be obvious and turning to slide 36 because what the trial
`has demonstrated is that Morita would default to low power and
`USB, you saw the slide I had up there where there was 100
`milliamps to 500 milliamps as referred to as high power port
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`(phonetic). The Morita phone will default to low power
`charging. That’s undisputed.
`Turning to slide 37. Well, why would you want to just
`charge at that low power when you want to charge at high power
`and the petition demonstrated, well, that is what you could use
`the SE1 signal for if that was a requirement to send it, to receive
`it, to do something with is and why what example would that
`make -- would it be (indiscernible). Well, when there’s no host
`and when there’s no host enumeration, which is a different
`option as described by Patent Owner, enumeration is not
`possible. The SE1 signal would be a great option, 1) it’s
`undisputed that SE1 is easily distinguished, that is Shiga.
`What’s notable about Shiga is that, and I have a slide on
`Dr. Fernald’s testimony, Shiga uses the SE1 signal as a wake-up
`means and then it later uses USB communications and that’s
`exactly how Morita would use an SE1 signal if it was a claim
`requirement, is that you would send the SE1 signal, you would
`get out of the default low power or high power and when it
`needed to be the host, just like Shiga, USB communications
`would commence.
`JUDGE PESLAK: Mr. Lang, this is Judge Peslak. The
`claim here says this identification signal has to be on the D+ and
`D - line; correct?
`MR. LANG: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE PESLAK: So the USB, there’s only really three
`options then; right? Either if both D+ and D- are logic high,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`then the other two are D+ is high and D- is low and the third
`option is D- is low and D+ is high; right? I mean, those are the
`only options in the USB spec.
`MR. LANG: Yes, Your Honor, and that’s one reason the
`SE1 signal was so well known, so easily distinguished. There
`wasn’t that many different states and the SE1 where both of them
`are high was kind of left as like this red herring case and that’s
`why you see it used in Casebolt. You see it here being used in
`Shiga and saying it’s easily distinguished. It’s just a well known
`state as you noted.
`Turning to slide 38. What you’re going to hear I think
`today from the Patent Owner what it is, what they’ve said in
`their papers, well, there’s other options than using SE1.
`But turning to slide 39. The SE1 option is certainly cut
`away from and there’s strong motivation to use it. It’s not
`disputed. It’s never been disputed that SE1 is easily
`distinguished and that’s important because when providing a
`signal of course, you want the thing to be detected easily and
`that’s what the SE1 signal is. It’s detected easily.
`Notably, it makes a lot of sense in Morita too because
`there’s no dispute that Morita already figured out how to deviate
`from the USB specification. Dr. Fernald admits that too. So,
`yes, SE1 is this red herring case, it’s not really used in USB.
`It’s effectively, you know, utilized by Casebolt as an
`identification signal, Shiga as a wake-up and Morita, it’s prime
`for Morita to use it because it already does these tricks
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00599
`Patent 7,834,586 B2
`
`effectively. It already deviates from the USB specification.
`That’s not contested.
`What Patent Owner has focused on, turning to slide 40, is
`they say, well, there’s this other option of using enumeration and
`it is true that enumeration is one option to go out at just a full
`low power charging. But what’s critical is that it’s undisputed
`that Morita does not disclose using USB enumeration to exit
`default. Dr. Fernald very clearly said, okay, does Morita, you
`know, do this 100 milliamps charging, the low power as a
`default? He says, you know, well, Morita doesn’t say. Does it
`say 500, the high power? He says Morita doesn’t say. So a
`POSITA reading Morita you’re left with it doesn’t exit default,
`the low power charging. So you do need an option to go to high
`power charging and the SE1 option is easily distinguished. You
`don’t even need a host to use it, it’s an optimal option and then
`what the full record also demonstrated --
`JUDGE PESLAK: Mr. Lang, you have about three minutes
`left in your original time.
`MR. LANG: Okay. Just -- I may go over a couple of
`minutes. Briefly, I want to get to what else the trial illustrated
`and one thing that came out was the Patent Owner said, well, yo
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
