UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD AND DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MYPAQ HOLDINGS LTD.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00311
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,477,514
`
`_______________________
`
`EX. 2018
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. FRANK FERRESE
`
`_______________________
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 1 of 80
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................................... 1
`
`III. BASES OF OPINIONS ............................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS........................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................ 7
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................. 8
`
`Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) ............................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’514 PATENT AND THE STATE
`OF THE ART ..................................................................................... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`’514 Patent Invention .............................................................. 12
`
`Technology Background ......................................................... 17
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ........................................................... 18
`
`C.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................. 20
`
`IV. THE CITED REFERENCES DO NOT TEACH OR SUGGESTS
`EVERY LIMITATION OF ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM .................. 20
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1A: Claims 1-12, 14-17 and 19-20 are not
`anticipated by Chagny ...................................................................... 20
`
`1.
`
`Chagny does not teach or suggest a “power converter
`controller configured to receive a signal from said load
`indicating a system operation operational state of said
`load” as required by independent claim 1 ............................ 20
`
`-i-
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 2 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Chagny does not teach or suggest a “power system
`controller configured to provide a signal characterizing
`a power requirement” as required by independent
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 27
`
`Chagny does not teach “a power system controller
`configured to enable operation of components of a
`processor system to establish a state of power drain
`thereof” as required by Claims 11 and 16 ............................ 29
`
`Chagny does not teach or suggest enabling operation of
`components of a processor system to establish a state of
`power drain thereof ................................................................ 32
`
`Chagny does not teach or suggest a “power system
`controller” as required by independent claims 6 and 11 .... 34
`
`Chagny does not teach or suggest claims 2-5, 7-10, 12,
`14-15, 17 or 19-20 .................................................................... 38
`
`Chagny does not teach or suggest a “power converter
`as recited in claim 1 wherein said power converter
`controller is further configured to provide another
`signal to control said duty cycle of said power switch as
`a function of said output characteristic and in
`accordance with said signal” as required by Claims 2,
`7, 12 and 17 .............................................................................. 38
`
`Chagny does not teach or suggest “[t]he power
`converter as recited in claim 1 wherein said power
`converter controller is configured to adjust said
`internal operating characteristic over a period of time”
`as required by Claims 3, 8, 14 and 19 ................................... 39
`
`Chagny does not teach or suggest a “power converter
`as recited in claim 1 wherein said load is a processor
`and said system operational state is dependent on one
`of a core state and a performance state of said
`processor” as required by Claims 4 and 9 ............................ 44
`
` -ii-
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 3 of 80
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 1B: Claims 1-20 are not rendered obvious by
`Chagny in view of the knowledge of a POSITA ............................. 47
`
`Ground 2A: Claims 1-10, 16-17 and 19-20 are not
`anticipated by Hwang ....................................................................... 48
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Hwang does not disclose “a power converter controller
`configured to receive a signal from said load indicating
`a system operational state of said load” as required by
`independent Claim 1 ............................................................... 48
`
`Hwang does not disclose a “a power system controller
`configured to provide a signal characterizing a power
`requirement of a processor system” as required by
`independent Claim 6 ............................................................... 53
`
`Hwang does not teach or suggest “enabling operation
`of components of a processor system to establish a state
`of power drain thereof” as required by claim 16 ................. 54
`
`Hwang does not teach or suggest a “power system
`controller” ................................................................................ 56
`
`Hwang does not sense a power level of said state of
`power drain in response to said signal .................................. 59
`
`Hwang does not teach or suggest claims 2-5, 7-10, 17 or
`19-20 ......................................................................................... 60
`
`Hwang does not disclose or suggest a power converter
`“wherein said power converter controller is further
`configured to provide another signal to control said
`duty cycle of said power switch as a function of said
`output characteristic and in accordance with said
`signal” as required by Claim 2, 7, 12 and 17 ........................ 60
`
`Hwang does not disclose a power converter “wherein
`said power converter controller is configured to adjust
`said internal operating characteristic over a period of
`time” as required by Claims 3, 8, 14 and 19 ......................... 62
`
`-iii-
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 4 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`9.
`
`Hwang does not disclose a power converter, “wherein
`said load is a processor and said system operational
`state is dependent on one of a core state and a
`performance state of said processor” as required by
`claims 4 and 9 .......................................................................... 65
`
`D. Ground 2B: Hwang in view of Chagny does not render
`Claims 11-12, 14-17 and 19-20 obvious ........................................... 68
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Hwang in view of Chagny does not render claim 11
`obvious ...................................................................................... 68
`
`Hwang in view of Chagny does not render claims 12,
`14-17 or 19-20 obvious ............................................................ 71
`
`E. Ground 2C: Hwang in view of the knowledge of a POSITA
`does not render obvious claim 18 ..................................................... 72
`
`F. Ground 2D: Hwang in view of Chagny does not render
`obvious claims 13 and 18 .................................................................. 74
`
`V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` -iv-
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 5 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`1. My name is Dr. Frank Ferrese. I have been retained as an expert witness
`
`to provide my independent opinion in regards with matters at issue in the inter partes
`
`review of U.S. 8,477,514 (“the ’514 Patent”) in the IPR2022-00311 proceeding. I
`
`have been retained by MyPAQ Holdings LTD. (“MyPAQ”), the Patent Owner, in the
`
`above proceedings. Petitioners in this case are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`
`Dell Technologies Inc.
`
`2.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, the statements made herein are based on my
`
`personal knowledge, and if called to testify about this declaration, I could and would
`
`do so competently and truthfully.
`
`3.
`
`I am not a legal expert and offer no opinions on the law. However, I
`
`have been informed by counsel of the various legal standards that apply, and I have
`
`applied those standards in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`4.
`
`The opinions I set forth herein are my own and are based on my
`
`education, experience, training and skill I have accumulated.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5. My qualifications to testify about the patent-in-suit, relevant technology,
`
`and the prior art are set forth in my curriculum vitae (“CV”), which is attached
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 6 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`hereto as Exhibit 2019. My CV includes my educational background and work
`
`history.
`
`6. My career in the field of electrical engineering includes more than 25
`
`years of hardware and software design and development, research in electrical
`
`systems, educating electrical engineers, and consulting.
`
`7.
`
`I completed a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering at Drexel
`
`University in 1995. In 2006, I received a Master of Science in Computer
`
`Engineering at Villanova University. In 2013, I completed a Ph.D. in Engineering,
`
`also from Villanova University. My research focused on the control of dynamic
`
`systems. I completed both my M.S. and Ph.D. degrees part time while working full
`
`time. I am a licensed Professional Engineer in the state of New Jersey.
`
`8.
`
`I began working for the Naval Surface Warfare Center (“NSWC”) while
`
`I was still an undergraduate. Upon graduating with a B.S., I began working at
`
`NSWC full time. At that time, my work was focused on the design and upgrade of
`
`communication systems for submarines. I designed control circuitry, tuned and
`
`modified filters, developed test methods, developed drawings and training material
`
`and oversaw installations for two major communication system upgrades on three
`
`classes of submarines.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 7 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`9. My first major assignment as a lead project engineer was for the
`
`development of a large hardware and software based system that was designed to
`
`acquire operating data from all the machinery systems on a ship, and analyze that
`
`data for the purposes of predicting failure and optimizing the performance of
`
`maintenance on the machinery. These systems consisted of data acquisition and
`
`analysis hardware and software, operator workstations, and
`
`hundreds of sensors.
`
`10. For about a year, starting in April 1999, I worked as a consultant,
`
`analyzing maintenance and manufacturing methods for major corporations such as
`
`Xerox and Kodak. I provided recommendations for maintenance and manufacturing
`
`process improvements to the clients, and assisted with implementation of these
`
`improvements.
`
`11.
`
`In 2000, I returned to NSWC to lead the design and fielding of an
`
`integrated navigation and ship control system. This project involved significant
`
`hardware and software design. I oversaw the designs for several classes of Navy
`
`surface ships, developed test plans for hardware and software, performed hardware
`
`and software integration, developed land-based test laboratories for several designs,
`
`and oversaw dozens of installations of the systems. During this time, I managed a
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 8 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`group of about 20 engineers who were working on various aspects of this
`
`technology.
`
`12. As I was finishing my Master’s degree, I decided that I wanted to pursue
`
`a terminal degree in engineering. To facilitate that, I requested and received
`
`a transfer to the research and development department at NSWC. My work focused
`
`on the control of distributed systems. This has involved the design of control
`
`algorithms, the use of power electronic devices for control of electrical waveforms
`
`and power management, the modeling and simulation of complex dynamical
`
`systems such as electrical power systems, the development of control hardware and
`
`software, and the design of control system architectures, and the design and
`
`optimization of sensor systems and networks.
`
`13. Since 2007, I have published over 20 journal and conference papers
`
`with my collaborators. I have also published one book, titled, "Distributed Control of
`
`Heterogeneous Systems".
`
`14.
`
`I have been teaching engineering and mathematics to undergraduate and
`
`graduate engineering students since 2007. I have taught courses in circuit analysis,
`
`control theory, computer programming, optimization theory, applied mathematics,
`
`power systems, and motor controls.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 9 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`I was the general chair of the IEEE International Symposium on
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`Resilient Controls in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.
`
`16.
`
`In 2007, I was awarded the IEEE Philadelphia Section Young Engineer
`
`of the Year for my research contributions in the area, of distributed and autonomous
`
`controls.
`
`17.
`
`I have been awarded and executed over $4.5 million in research grants
`
`from the Office of Naval Research (ONR), Defense Advanced Research Agency
`
`(DARPA), and NSWC (internally funded research) since 2008.
`
`18. My last assignment for the navy as an employee of NSWC to lead
`
`the development of autonomy hardware and software design for a series of prototype
`
`unmanned surface vessels.
`
`19.
`
`In 2013, I founded FJT Technologies, LLC and began consulting. I have
`
`provided consultation and expert witness services in about a dozen cases since that
`
`time. This work has involved failure analysis in battery systems, lighting systems,
`
`electrical circuitry, causes of electrical fires and analysis of damage due to lightning
`
`and electrical surges.
`
`20.
`
`In 2021, I retired from NSWC and since then have been focused solely
`
`on my engineering practice which now involves both engineering design
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 10 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`assignments and forensic electrical engineering.
`
`21.
`
`I am a co-inventor on two patents. One involves an autonomously
`
`operating valve that can sense piping ruptures and coordinate with other valves to
`
`isolate the rupture. The other involves a method of integrating a number of physics
`
`based simulations of systems that have significant differences in their time scales.
`
`22.
`
`I make this declaration based on personal knowledge, and I am
`
`competent to testify about the matters set forth herein.
`
`23.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual rate of $325/hour for each hour of
`
`services that I provide in connection with this case, including time I spend
`
`consulting, writing this report, giving deposition testimony and testifying. My
`
`compensation does not depend in any way on the content of my testimony and is
`
`not affected by the outcome of the case. If called to testify as to the contents of this
`
`report, I can and would testify truthfully and competently.
`
`III. BASES OF OPINIONS
`
`24.
`
`In the course of conducting my analysis and forming my opinions, I
`
`have reviewed the exhibits submitted to date in this IPR, along with the Petition,
`
`Preliminary Response and Institution Decision. My opinions are also based in part
`
`upon my education, training, research, knowledge, and experience.
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 11 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`A. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`1. Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`25. My opinions in this declaration are based on the understandings of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, which I understand is sometimes referred to as an
`
`“ordinary artisan” or by the acronym “POSITA” (person of ordinary skill in the art),
`
`as of the time of the invention. For purposes of this Declaration, I have been
`
`instructed to use December 1, 2006 as the time of invention. I understand that the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have
`
`known the relevant art at the time of the invention. By “relevant,” I mean relevant to
`
`the challenged claims of the ’514 Patent.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that, in assessing the level of skill of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, one should consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the
`
`prior solutions to those problems found in the prior art references, the rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, the level of
`
`education of active workers in the field, and my own experience working with those
`
`of skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 12 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`2.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`I understand that claims of the patent-at-issue in this IPR are generally
`
`
`
`
`
`27.
`
`interpreted according to their ordinary and customary meaning taking into
`
`consideration the so-called “intrinsic evidence” of the patent consisting of (1) the
`
`claim language; (2) the specification; and (3) the prosecution history.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that claim terms may be explicitly defined in the patent
`
`specification, or they may be implicitly defined through consistent usage in the
`
`specification. I also understand that the scope of claim terms may be limited by
`
`statements in the specification or prosecution history where the applicant clearly
`
`disavows or disclaims subject matter.
`
`3. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed that a patent may be invalid if the claimed
`
`invention would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that the following factors must
`
`be evaluated to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden of proof that a
`
`claimed invention is obvious:
`
`1. The scope and content of the prior art relied upon by Petitioner;
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 13 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`2. The difference or differences, if any, between each claim of the patent and
`
`the prior art;
`
`3. The level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention of the patent
`
`was made; and
`
`4. Any objective indicia of non-obviousness, including, for example:
`
`(1) commercial success of an embodiment; (2) a long-felt need; (3)
`
`skepticism; (4) failure by others to find the solution provided by the
`
`claimed invention; (5) copying by others of the subject matter of the claim
`
`invention; (6) unexpected results of the claimed invention; (7) acceptance
`
`of others and industry praise; and (8) licensing of the patents.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of the elements was independently known in the prior art. I
`
`have been informed that many, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks already
`
`known, and claimed inventions almost of necessity will likely be combinations of
`
`what is already known.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed that a combination of prior art references must
`
`disclose, teach or suggest all of the recited limitations of the claim for the invention
`
`to be found obvious.
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 14 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`I have been informed that it is important in the obviousness inquiry to
`
`
`
`
`
`32.
`
`identify whether a reason existed at the time of the invention that would have
`
`motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field to combine or
`
`modify the prior art references in the manner proposed by the Petitioner so as to
`
`arrive at the claimed invention. Put another way, a finding of obviousness should be
`
`supported by an apparent reason to combine or modify the prior art references as
`
`proposed by the Petitioner.
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed that it is important in the obviousness inquiry that
`
`it is understood how the combination of references is supposed to work. An
`
`explanation of the operation of the combined references is often a prerequisite to
`
`showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make
`
`the proposed combination and would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed that a finding of obviousness “requires the
`
`additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would
`
`have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research
`
`and development to yield the claimed invention.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`
`655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In addition, I have been informed that a person
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 15 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`of ordinary skill in the art should have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`combining the references as proposed.
`
`35.
`
` In assessing obviousness, I have been instructed to consider both the
`
`ordinary creativity and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art. I also
`
`understand that it is impermissible for common sense to be applied to fill gaps in
`
`prior art that fails to teach or suggest a limitation of the claim. I also understand that
`
`the obviousness inquiry should guard against hindsight bias or hindsight
`
`reconstruction where after-the-fact reasoning is applied to combine prior art elements
`
`using the claimed invention as a template, without establishing that, as of the date of
`
`the invention, there exists a motivation to combine or apparent reason to combine the
`
`prior art as proposed.
`
`36.
`
`In assessing obviousness, I have been instructed that, in order to qualify
`
`as proper prior art for an obviousness analysis, a reference must qualify as analogous
`
`art. I have been informed that a reference qualifies as analogous art with respect to
`
`the claims if it is either: (1) from the same field or endeavor as the patent; or (2) the
`
`reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by the
`
`invention. I have also been informed that for a reference to be reasonably pertinent, it
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 16 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`must logically have commended itself during the ordinary course of development to
`
`an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.
`
`37.
`
`In assessing obviousness, I have also been instructed that, as noted
`
`above, secondary considerations can often be probative evidence of non-obviousness
`
`and can serve to avoid hindsight bias. I have been instructed that secondary
`
`considerations can be sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. I
`
`have been instructed that Patent Owner can show non-obviousness if: (1) the industry
`
`praised their work; (2) their design was copied by others; (3) their design achieved a
`
`high level of commercial success; or (4) their invention had unexpected beneficial
`
`results, for example.
`
`B. OVERVIEW OF THE ’514 PATENT AND THE STATE OF THE
`ART
`
`1.
`
`’514 Patent Invention
`
`38. The ’514 Patent relates to an adaptively controlling power converters for
`
`use in power systems. Ex. 1001 [’514 Patent], Title. The ’514 Patent’s power
`
`converter may include a power converter controller configured to receive a signal
`
`from the load indicating a system operational state of the load which enables a power
`
`converter topological state as a function of the signal. Ex. 1001 [’514 Patent],
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 17 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`Abstract. The invention “adaptively improves power conversion efficiency of a
`
`power converter in response to a measured parameter of the power converter after a
`
`manufacturing step, or to a parameter measured on a representative power converter”
`
`and “includes consideration of operating conditions, a signal from an external source
`
`representing an environmental parameter or system operational state of a load
`
`coupled to the power system.” Ex. 1001 [’514 Patent], 6:36-44. Thus, the invention is
`
`adaptive because it improves on a conventional feedback loop that simply monitors
`
`the output of a power converter by accounting for additional considerations (such as
`
`operating conditions or system operational state of loads) and using those
`
`considerations to adaptively improve power conversion efficiency. Id., 6:33-35.
`
`39.
`
`’514 Patent Fig. 3, for example, illustrates an embodiment of a power
`
`converter disclosed in the ’514 Patent. As shown below, the power converter
`
`includes a controller 311. The inputs to controller 311 not only include voltages and
`
`currents measured at locations on the power converter, including Vin, Vbus, Vout and
`
`Iload, they include external signal Vext “indicating an environmental parameter from an
`
`external source such as a server powered by the power converter” and a setup signal
`
`Vsetup that “may provide the result of a parameter measured in a test fixture after a
`
`manufacturing step to set or otherwise tailor parameters for the operation of the
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 18 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`controller 311.” Ex. 1001 [’514 Patent], 12:44-49. Further inputs may include
`
`thermistors 313 to “provide multiple temperature measurements to the controller
`
`311” (id., 12:32-35) and a “signal indicating a system operation state Sop_state.” Id.,
`
`13:10-15.
`
`
`
`40. The ’514 Patent teaches an adaptive controller that is capable of more
`
`complex and nuanced power control than, for example, merely switching between
`
`high power and low power modes based on a feedback loop. Controller 311 is not a
`
`simple switch or transistor designed to execute binary (on/off) decisions. Instead,
`
`controller 311 preferably “includes digital processing capability at least comparable
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 19 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`to that of a low-end microprocessor (or other digital implementations, such as a
`
`microcontroller, digital signal processor, a field-programmable gate array, complex
`
`programmable logic device).” Id., 12:49-57. As such, controller 311 “may include a
`
`multidimensional table or other functional representation of a value to control an
`
`internal operating characteristic or an output characteristic of the power converter.”
`
`Id., 14:1-5. See also id., Figs. 5A-5B.
`
`41.
`
`In certain embodiments, the ’514 Patent also discloses a “power system
`
`controller” distinct from the power converter controller and load. For example, Fig.
`
`11 (below) discloses an embodiment including multiple power converters (PU_1,
`
`PU_2, … PU_n) controlled by a power system controller. The power system
`
`controller may also be coupled to multiple loads (SVR_1, SVR_2, … SVR_n).
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 20 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`42. Based in part on information from the loads, “[t]he power system
`
`
`
`controller PSC may command different power converter operational states PCop-
`
`state to different power converters PU in the power system.” Ex. 1001 [’514 Patent],
`
`23:53-56. “[O]ne power converter PU may be disabled, while the other power
`
`converters PU continue to operate under a light system load, preferably with a
`
`consideration of measured operating efficiencies of the particular power converters
`
`PU installed.” Id., 23:56-60.
`
`43. Thus, the ’514 Patent discloses multiple levels of system control that
`
`allow the power system controller “to enhance (e.g., optimize) power system
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 21 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`operating efficiency on a power system level basis” (id., 25:7-9) as well as at
`
`individual power converters. Id., 23:50-53.
`
`2.
`
`Technology Background
`
`44. Technologies aimed at the optimization of power consumption for
`
`computer system components have been developing for some time. As early as
`
`1996, the first revision of the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface, an open
`
`standard to perform power management for computer hardware components, was
`
`released. Ex. 1001 [’514 Patent], 5:22-27. This standard has continued to develop to
`
`support new interfaces and architectures. See, e.g., Ex. 2022 [ACPI]. In fact, the
`
`’514 Patent cites this standard and discusses how these developments, while
`
`significant, fail to enable optimization of power consumption at the processor system
`
`level. Ex. 1001 [’514 Patent], 5:60-6:20. The critical difference between the
`
`technology existing at the time and the novel developments of the ’514 Patent is in
`
`this optimization at the system level as opposed to optimization at the component
`
`level. Component level optimization considers the operation of the individual
`
`component, such as a CPU or microprocessor, and adjusts the power system in view
`
`of individual component operation. Optimization of power consumption at the
`
`system level as disclosed in the ’514 Patent considers the overall operation of the
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 22 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`system (such as an entire server or PC), for example, the ‘system operational state’.
`
`While at the component level, one may consider, for example, the activity level of
`
`the processor, system level optimization relies on understanding of how the system is
`
`operating as a whole and adjusts the power system accordingly. Of course, both
`
`concepts can be used in tandem to gain benefits at both the component and the
`
`system level. Examples of system operational state include contextual information
`
`about the system operation. An example of such a consideration is a processor
`
`system that is operating during business hours, performing time critical financial
`
`calculations, versus that same processor doing batch processing at night when the
`
`markets are closed. Ex. 1001 [’514 Patent], 5:8-17. In the first case, one will sacrifice
`
`efficiency to gain performance while in the latter case, when time is not critical, one
`
`can sacrifice performance to gain additional efficiencies and consume less power.
`
`3.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`45.
`
`In this case, Dr. Kiaei has asserted in his declaration that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the ʼ514 Patent (“POSITA”) would have had
`
`either (i) a Master’s of Science in Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, or
`
`(ii) a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering or an equivalent field as well as
`
`at least two years of experience in the design of power electronics. Depending on
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 75
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2018
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 23 of 80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`how a person with a Master and Bachelor degree in Electrical Engineering chooses to
`
`focus their education, they may have only taken a basic power electronics course. A
`
`single course on power electronics would typically not be enough to qualify as a
`
`POSITA. To qualify as a POSITA based entirely on education, a person would need
`
`to demonstrate a significant focus on power electronics while obtaining their Master
`
`and/or Bachelor degrees, for example, through taking higher level courses focused on
`
`power electronics, publishing on the topic of power electronics, performing lab work
`
`or internships in the field of power electronics, or similar.
`
`46. Further, a person with a Master and Bachelor degree in many
`
`“equivalent fields” to Electrical Engineering would not be e