UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`and ANKER INNOVATIONS LTD.,1
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MYPAQ HOLDINGS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00311
`Patent 8,477,514
`____________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`1 Anker Innovations Ltd. filed a motion for joinder and a petition in IPR2022-01134
`
`and has been joined as a petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`CLAIM 1 ......................................................................................................... 1
`A. PO relies on an improper interpretation of “system operational
`state of said load” ....................................................................................... 1
`B. Chagny’s “activity input 202” is a “signal indicating a system
`operational state of said load” .................................................................... 5
`C. Hwang’s “standby signal” is a “signal indicating a system
`operational state of said load” .................................................................... 6
`III. CLAIM 6 ......................................................................................................... 9
`A. PO relies on an improper interpretation of “a signal
`characterizing a power requirement” ......................................................... 9
`B. Chagny’s “activity input 202” characterizes a power requirement
`of Chagny’s processor system..................................................................10
`IV. CLAIMS 11 AND 16 ....................................................................................11
`A. Chagny and Hwang disclose the “enable” and “enabling”
`elements of claims 11 and 16 ...................................................................11
`B. Hwang discloses the “sensing” element of Claim 16 ...........................14
`“POWER SYSTEM CONTROLLER” .....................................................14
`A. Chagny’s software program 296 is a “power system controller” .........14
`B. Hwang’s microprocessor is a “power system controller” ....................16
`VI. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2, 7, 12, 17 ..........................................................17
`A. Chagny discloses the “in accordance with” limitation because
`duty cycle control depends on switching frequency ................................18
`B. PO identifies the wrong signal in Hwang .............................................21
`VII. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3, 8, 14, 19 ..........................................................22
`A. PO improperly interprets “over a period of time” ................................22
`B. Chagny and Hwang disclose the “over a period of time”
`limitation ..................................................................................................23
`VIII. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 4 AND 9 ..............................................................24
`A. Chagny and Hwang disclose the “core state” limitation ......................24
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`IX. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 13 AND 18 ..........................................................25
`A. Chagny and Hwang disclose the “upon startup” limitation .................25
`GROUND 2B-SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS .................................................27
`
`X.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,477,514 by Artusi et al. (“the ’514 Patent”)
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei
`
`Excerpts of the ’514 Patent File History
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,873,136 to Chagny (“Chagny”)
`
`Reserved
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0174152 to Hwang et
`al. (“Hwang”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,545 to Helms (“Helms”)
`
`Comparisons of Claims 11-15 to 16-20 of the ’514 Patent
`
`Ned Mohan et al., Power Electronics: Converters, Applications, and
`Design (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2d Ed. 1995)
`
`MyPAQ’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Exhibit 16, served
`in MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`6:21-CV-398-ADA
`
`MyPAQ’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Exhibit 21, served
`in MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`6:21-CV-398-ADA
`
`Alan Grebene, Bipolar and MOS Analog Integrated Circuit Design
`(John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1984) (“Grebene”)
`
`MyPAQ’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, served in MyPAQ
`Holdings, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 6:21-CV-398-
`ADA
`
`MyPAQ Holdings Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No.
`21-cv-00398, Dkt. 40 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2021) (“Scheduling
`Order”)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`S.A. Money, Microprocessor Data Book (Academic Press, Inc., 2nd
`ed. 1990)
`
`MyPAQ’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, served in MyPAQ
`Holdings, Ltd. v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al., 6:21-CV-933-ADA
`
`MyPAQ’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Exhibit 5, served
`in MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd. v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al., 6:21-CV-
`933-ADA
`
`MyPAQ’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Exhibit 7, served
`in MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd. v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al., 6:21-CV-
`933-ADA
`
`April 12, 2022 Email from the Board Authorizing Preliminary Reply
`and Sur-reply
`
`Dell’s Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Motion for Intra-
`District Transfer of Venue, filed in MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd. v. Dell
`Technologies Inc. et al., 6:21-CV-933-ADA (Dkt. 43)
`
`MyPAQ’s Opposition to Motion to Stay, filed in MyPAQ Holdings,
`Ltd. v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al., 6:21-CV-933-ADA (Dkt. 45)
`
`Transcript of Discovery Hearing held on January 26, 2022 in MyPAQ
`Holdings, Ltd. v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al., 6:21-CV-933-ADA
`
`Email Correspondence Regarding January 26, 2022 Hearing in
`MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd. v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al., 6:21-CV-933-
`ADA as it relates to co-pending case MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd. v.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 6:21-CV-398-ADA
`
`Andrew T. Dufresne, Nathan K Kelley, & Lori Gordon, How reliable
`are trial dates relied on by the PTAB in the Fintiv analysis?, Perkins
`Coie 1600 PTAB & BEYOND, Oct. 29, 2021
`
`Dani Kass, Fintiv Fails: PTAB Uses ‘Remarkably Inaccurate’ Trial
`Dates, LAW360, Nov. 2, 2021
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`Supplemental Expert Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Frank Ferrese in IPR2022-00311
`Conducted on November 3, 2022
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1999)
`
`Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary (2004)
`
`Paul Horowitz et al., The Art of Electronics (Cambridge University
`Press, 2d Ed. 1989)
`
`Additional Excerpts from Alan Grebene, Bipolar and MOS Analog
`Integrated Circuit Design (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1984)
`(“Grebene”)
`
`1032
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,294,904 to Hirst (“Hirst”)
`
`Citations to exhibits including patents and patent applications reference original
`
`page, column, paragraph, or line numbers found in the underlying document.
`
`Citations to other exhibits refer to exhibit page numbering.
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’514 Patent purports to improve upon known power converters by using
`
`adaptive control responsive, for example, to a signal from a load coupled to the
`
`power converter. See Pet., 4-5. But as explained in the Petition, Chagny and Hwang
`
`both disclose power converters that adaptively control internal operating
`
`characteristics, to improve the efficiency of those power converters, based on a
`
`signal indicating the state of the load. Nothing in the Patent Owner’s Response
`
`draws into question the disclosures of the prior art. Rather, Patent Owner (“PO”)
`
`repeatedly relies on improperly narrow interpretations, raised without formal claim
`
`construction, in effort to carve out the prior art. As explained herein, PO’s claim
`
`interpretations, and the positions that follow, have no merit.
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM 1
`
`A.
`
`PO relies on an improper interpretation of “system operational
`state of said load”
`
`PO declines to provide an express construction for the term “system
`
`operational state of said load.” Yet, PO’s arguments are based on a narrow
`
`interpretation relying on cherry-picked specification examples, while ignoring other
`
`specification examples that match the prior art.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`PO interprets “system operational state” to mean “the way in which the system
`
`as a whole is being employed or utilized.” Paper 17 (“POR”), 18.2 PO then argues
`
`that the claimed signal indicating the system operational state of the load must
`
`indicate a “particular context”3 beyond just the “current or future operational state
`
`of the load.” Id., 20. PO adds that the system operational state is “driven by various
`
`factors, including external requirements, and is ultimately dependent on the context
`
`in which the system is being utilized.” Id., 21.
`
`PO’s requirement of “particular context” finds no support in the claims or
`
`2 PO’s expert, Dr. Ferrese, contends that as of December 1, 2006, a POSITA would
`have understood “system operational state,” to refer to the context in which the
`system is being employed or utilized. EX2018,¶51; EX1027, 111:2-112:5. But Dr.
`Ferrese admitted during deposition that his first experience with switching power
`converters was not until around 2010, and he could not say whether the basic concept
`of power factor correction was known before 2006. EX1027, 37:7-11, 43:17-22.
`Given Dr. Ferrese did not have ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time, his
`testimony on this and other issues relating to what an ordinary artisan would have
`known in 2006 should be rejected. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, No.
`2020-1046, Slip. Op. at 12-13 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 21, 2022) (witness lacking ordinary
`skill in the art at relevant time cannot testify “on any issue that is analyzed through
`the lens of an ordinarily skilled artisan”).
`3 Emphasis added throughout unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`specification. First, PO’s interpretation conflicts with the language of the claim.
`
`Claim 1 recites a “a signal indicating a system operational state of said load.”
`
`EX1001, Claim 1. The plain language dictates that the “system operational state” is
`
`a state “of said load.” There is no basis for injecting a requirement of a particular
`
`context external to the load as argued by PO. See POR, 20. Indeed, in related district
`
`court cases, PO proposed “system operational state of [a/said] load” should be
`
`construed to mean “operational condition of the load” with its only proposed caveat
`
`being that the operational condition of the load be “more than just the present output
`
`voltage of the power converter” that powers the load. EX2028, 2.
`
`Additionally, PO’s
`
`interpretation
`
`improperly excludes embodiments
`
`disclosed in the specification. For example, the ’514 Patent discloses that “a
`
`processor core state” is an example of a “system operational state.” EX1001, 26:10-
`
`11.4 Further, the background of the specification describes “system operational
`
`4 PO argues that a “core state of a processor such as a … C-state, indicating, for
`example, that the system is operating from emergency power” indicates a particular
`context. POR, 19-20 (citing EX1001, 9:11-27). But PO’s cited passage is
`exemplary, not limiting. Other portions of the patent specification describe “system
`operational states” as including core states or C-states with no reference to a
`particular context external to the processor (i.e., the load). EX1001, 26:10-11; see
`also id., 5:19-27, 5:44-59; EX1026,¶9 n.3.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`states” such as ACPI “P-states” and “C-states.” Id., 5:19-26. The P-states
`
`“describe[] the ‘performance’ state … of the processor as high, medium, or low”
`
`(id., 5:27-29), and the C-states describe “a processor at its full operation level” or at
`
`“various levels of a processor sleep state” (id., 5:46-49). Notably, both states relate
`
`to the operating state of the processor (i.e., the load), rather than a particular context
`
`(e.g., criticality based on time of day) external to the load as PO purports the claims
`
`require. Id., 5:27-49; EX1026,¶9; EX1027, 50:8-14 (PO’s expert agreeing that ACPI
`
`C-states refer to states of a processor).
`
`As another example, the ’514 Patent discloses “a signal indicating that a load
`
`current will change” as an “example of a signal indicating a change in a system
`
`operational state.” EX1001, 9:23-27. The “load current” is simply the electrical
`
`current drawn by the load. EX1029, 5; EX1026,¶10. This example is again focused
`
`on the load itself, not a particular context external to the load.5
`
`Id., ¶10. PO’s
`
`attempt to inject a context requirement into the claims should be rejected.
`
`5 PO cites this example (see POR, 19-20), but PO does not—and cannot—offer any
`explanation how a change in the load current at a particular time, without more,
`indicates a particular context external to the load.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`B.
`
`Chagny’s “activity input 202” is a “signal indicating a system
`operational state of said load”
`
`As illustrated by annotated Figure 2A, the “activity input 202” received by
`
`Chagny’s controller module 210 (i.e., the power converter controller) indicates the
`
`activity level of processor 292 and thus is a “signal indicating a system operational
`
`state of the load.” See Pet., 17-19; EX1004, 4:35-43, 5:11-12; EX1002,¶¶63-65.
`
`software program
`
`processor
`
`activity input 202
`(i.e., signal indicating
`system operational
`state of load)
`
`power
`converter
`controller
`
`power converter
`
`EX1004, Fig. 2A (annotated); EX1026,¶11.
`
`The ’514 Patent describes “system operational states” as including the “core
`
`state” of a processor that affects the processor’s “level of power consumption.” Pet.,
`
`18 n.1 (citing EX1001, 5:19-27, 5:44-59). Similar to this example in the ’514 Patent,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`the activity level of Chagny’s processor 292 depends “on the number of instructions
`
`executed within a predefined time interval” (EX1004, 4:18-20), and thus reflects the
`
`“demand for power required by the processor 292” (id., 5:62-64). EX1002,¶64.
`
`PO attempts to refute this point by arguing that the above-cited passages from
`
`the ’514 Patent “are intended to make a distinction between what was known (C-
`
`states and P-states) and what is novel about the ’514 Patent.” POR, 22-23 (citing
`
`EX1001, 5:60-64). But, the specification does not distinguish “core states” or “C-
`
`states” from “system operational states.” To the contrary, the ’514 Patent describes
`
`processor “core states” as examples of “system operational states.” See EX1001,
`
`26:10-11. What the ’514 Patent was attempting to distinguish was how conventional
`
`power converter controllers were purportedly not configured to respond to signals
`
`indicating the system operational state of the load connected to the power converter.
`
`See id., 5:19-22, 5:60-6:2, 6:36-44; EX1026,¶¶12-13. But, as described in the
`
`Petition, that feature was disclosed by the prior art.
`
`C.
`
`Hwang’s “standby signal” is a “signal indicating a system
`operational state of said load”
`
`Hwang’s controller 105 receives a “standby signal” from smart load 104
`
`indicating that the microprocessor within smart load 104 is in a “standby or ‘sleep’
`
`mode during periods of low activity.” Pet., 47-48; EX1006, [0021]; EX1026,¶14.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`power converter controller
`
`“smart load” including
`power system controller
`
`standby signal
`(indicating system
`operational state)
`
`power converter
`
`EX1006, Fig. 1 (annotated); EX1002,¶150.
`
`PO argues that Hwang’s standby signal indicates that the system is operating
`
`at a “reduced power level,” which in PO’s view would be consistent with one
`
`example of an “environmental parameter” disclosed in the ’514 Patent. POR, 43
`
`(citing EX1001, 9:4-11). PO thus argues that Hwang’s standby signal is an
`
`“environmental parameter,” not a “system operational state.” POR, 42. But, PO
`
`fails to point to any intrinsic evidence expressly requiring “environmental
`
`parameters” to be mutually exclusive from “environmental parameters.” And
`
`regardless of whether Hwang’s standby signal could also be considered an
`
`unclaimed “environmental parameter,” Hwang’s standby signal is a signal indicating
`
`the system operational state of the load.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`The ’514 Patent describes “system operational states” as including the “core
`
`states” of a processor, which “describe various levels of a processor sleep state” and
`
`thus affect the processor’s “level of power consumption.” EX1001, 5:19-27, 5:44-
`
`49. Hwang’s standby signal is sent from smart load 104 (i.e., the load) to controller
`
`105 (i.e., the power converter controller) when the microprocessor within smart load
`
`104 enters a “standby or ‘sleep’ mode during periods of low activity.” EX1006,
`
`[0021]. Thus, Hwang discloses the recited “signal indicating a system operational
`
`state of said load” in the same manner as the ’514 Patent. EX1026,¶15.
`
`The ’514 Patent also describes “a signal indicating that a load current will
`
`change” as an “example of a signal indicating a change in a system operational
`
`state.” EX1001, 9:23-27. Notably, the output voltage of Hwang’s power converter
`
`100 is constant. EX1006, [0021], [0030]. Because power equals voltage times
`
`current (P=V*I) (EX1030, 12), in scenarios like Hwang with a constant output
`
`voltage powering the load, a signal indicating a change in the load’s power demand
`
`would also be a signal indicating a change in the load’s current demand.
`
`EX1026,¶16. And as described in Section II.A, the ’514 Patent refers to such a
`
`signal indicating a change in the load current as a signal indicating a system
`
`operational state of the load.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`III. CLAIM 6
`
`A.
`
`PO relies on an improper interpretation of “a signal characterizing
`a power requirement”
`
`PO argues that Chagny and Hwang fail to disclose a “power system controller
`
`configured to provide a signal characterizing a power requirement of a processor
`
`system,” as recited by claim 6, because the signals in these references do not “tell
`
`the power converter to provide a certain level of power.” POR, 24, 45. PO’s
`
`argument has no merit because it relies on an improperly narrow interpretation that
`
`contradicts the plain meaning of claim 6.
`
`The plain meaning of “characterizing a power requirement of a processor
`
`system” is merely “describing a power requirement of a processor system.” See
`
`EX1028, 4 (defining “characterize” as “to describe the character or quality of”).6
`
`6 PO’s expert conceded that “characterizing” is generally defined as “indicative of.”
`EX1027, 74:7-17. PO’s expert attempted to back-track on his interpretation by
`opining for the first time that because other portions of claim 6 require the power
`converter controller to control an internal operating characteristic as a function of
`the signal received from the power system controller, that signal could not do
`“anything other” than “tell” the power converter “how much power to provide.” Id.,
`85:10-16; see also id., 83:6-86:8. But controlling an internal operating characteristic
`versus providing a specific level of power as a function of the signal from the power
`system controller are different things. EX1026,¶¶18-20. The internal operating
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`PO cites no evidence and makes no argument justifying its departure from the plain
`
`meaning by importing a requirement that the power system controller must “tell” the
`
`power converter (i.e., a different component) to provide a specific level of power.
`
`See POR 24, 25. Even PO’s expert admitted on cross-examination that the power
`
`converter can provide the required power to a load without a signal from the load
`
`telling it to provide that specific power level. EX1027, 92:5-93:20.
`
`B.
`
`Chagny’s “activity input 202” characterizes a power requirement
`of Chagny’s processor system
`
`PO also disputes whether Chagny’s “activity input 202” signal informs the
`
`“demand for power of the processor system.” POR, 25. In PO’s view, the “demand
`
`for power for the processor system is based on the total expected power over a
`
`specified time … and may include power drawn from other components (such as
`
`memory, hard drives, etc.) in the processor system.” Id.
`
`The claim, however, recites “a power requirement of a processor system,” not
`
`a sum of power requirements for all components that may optionally be included in
`
`characteristic may be controlled, for example, to improve power-converter
`efficiency across different load conditions. EX1001, 9:28-38, 15:1-12, 17:6-11.
`Meanwhile, the conventional feedback loop of a power converter would determine
`how much power to provide at its output (and thus to the load) to maintain the desired
`output voltage across different levels of power drawn by the load. EX1026,¶20.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`the processor system.
`
`Moreover, Chagny discloses how the “activity input 202” signal characterizes
`
`a power requirement of Chagny’s processor system. Chagny first explains that
`
`“demand for power by the processor 292” can be “controlled by limiting the number
`
`of instructions executed for a predefined time period.” EX1004, 5:62-64. Chagny
`
`also explains that “processor 292 loading, usage or activity level will vary depending
`
`on the number of instructions executed within a predefined time interval.” Id., 4:18-
`
`20. Thus, according to Chagny, the demand for power by processor 292 depends on
`
`the activity level. EX1002,¶86. And as explained in the Petition, Chagny’s “activity
`
`input 202” signal describes the activity level of processor 292 (id., 5:10-12), and
`
`thus characterizes a power requirement of Chagny’s processor system. Pet., 25-26;
`
`EX1002,¶¶85-88.
`
`IV. CLAIMS 11 AND 16
`
`A.
`
`Chagny and Hwang disclose the “enable” and “enabling” elements
`of claims 11 and 16
`
`PO argues that the Chagny and Hwang-based grounds fail to disclose “[to
`
`enable/enabling] operation of components of a processor system to establish a state
`
`of power drain thereof” as recited by claims 11 and 16.
`
`A POSITA would have understood that Chagny’s “processor 292” (e.g.,
`
`EX1004, 4:35-45), and Hwang’s “microprocessor” (e.g., EX1006, [0021], [0031]),
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`include multiple components, such as a control unit, a central processing unit, a
`
`memory to store the instructions to be executed, and input/output ports.
`
`EX1026,¶22; EX1002,¶132; EX1015, 4-6, Fig. 1.1. Thus, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that Chagny’s processor 292 7 and Hwang’s microprocessor are
`
`processor systems with multiple components. EX1026,¶22.
`
`In attempt to distinguish the art, PO first argues that the claimed “components
`
`of a processor system” include components, such as memory, hard drives, and
`
`specialized circuit cards, that are “peripheral” to the processor. POR, 26, 46.
`
`However, PO’s only alleged support in the specification describes how processor
`
`systems may “often” be constructed, not how they must be constructed. EX1001,
`
`13:29-33. There is thus no basis for inserting this “peripheral” limitation to narrow
`
`the claims. EX1026,¶23.
`
`PO further argues that the prior art “does not disclose the capability to
`
`selectively power individual components of a processor.” POR, 46. But again, PO
`
`improperly injects a limitation into the claims (i.e., “selectively power”) with no
`
`support from the context of the claims or the specification. Here, the claims only
`
`7 As noted in Petition, Chagny’s processor system also includes other associated
`components such as memory and input/output devices. Pet., 29 n.6 (citing EX1004,
`7:17-30, Fig. 4).
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`require that “enabling” components of the processor system be done for the purpose
`
`of establishing “a state of power drain” of those components. See EX1001, claims
`
`11, 16. Nothing requires that the components be “selectively” enabled, much less
`
`“selectively” powered on or off in a binary manner. To the contrary, the ’514 Patent
`
`describes power drains at varied “operating” levels. Id., 13:60-63 (describing “when
`
`power drains are at a normal or reduced operating level”); EX1026,¶24. Indeed,
`
`PO’s expert conceded during deposition that the claims “cover scenarios where all
`
`components of the processor system are enabled” (EX1027, 96:1-4; see also id.,
`
`94:14-96:4), thereby conceding that there can be no “selective” enabling
`
`requirement.
`
`As described in the Petition, both Chagny and Hwang disclose enabling
`
`components of their processor systems to establish states of power drain at such
`
`varied operating levels. Pet., 29-31 (Chagny), 62-63 (Hwang). Chagny’s software
`
`program 296 sets two bits in processor 292 to enable components of its processor to
`
`operate at one of “4 activity levels” (EX1004, 6:3-12), thereby establishing the
`
`“demand for power required by the processor 292” (i.e., the state of power drain)
`
`(id., 5:57-64). EX1026,¶25. Similarly, Hwang discloses entry of its smart load 104
`
`(which includes the microprocessor) into a “standby” or “sleep” mode. EX1006,
`
`[0021], [0031]. Thus, Hwang enables components of its microprocessor to operate
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`in a standby condition thereby establishing a standby-level of power drain. Id.,
`
`[0021], [0031]; EX1026,¶26.
`
`B.
`
`Hwang discloses the “sensing” element of Claim 16
`
`PO’s only basis for disputing Hwang’s disclosure of the “sensing…” step of
`
`claim 16 is based on its position regarding the predicate “enabling…” step. POR,
`
`50-51. But as described above, Hwang discloses each limitation of the “enabling…”
`
`step. See Section IV.A; Pet., 61-68.
`
`V.
`
`“POWER SYSTEM CONTROLLER”
`
`PO makes additional arguments regarding the “power system controller” in
`
`claims 6 and 11 that are untethered to requirements of the term in those claims. POR,
`
`30-32 (Chagny), 48-50 (Hwang). These arguments are addressed below separate
`
`from the claim-specific arguments.
`
`A.
`
`Chagny’s software program 296 is a “power system controller”
`
`As explained in the Petition and illustrated in annotated Figure 2A below,
`
`Chagny’s power system includes the software program 296 (i.e., the power system
`
`controller) and VRM 200 (i.e., the power converter). Pet., 24-28 (claim 6[pre]-[d]).
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`power switch
`
`power system
`controller
`
`processor
`
`I/O controller hub
`
`signal indicating
`system operational
`state of load
`
`power
`converter
`controller
`
`power converter
`
`EX1004, Fig. 2A (annotated); EX1002,¶85.
`
`PO repeats the same failed argument from its Preliminary Response that
`
`Chagny’s software program 296 is not a “power system controller.” PO argues
`
`“software program 296 … does not control any aspect of the claimed power system.”
`
`POR, 31; Paper 7 (“POPR”), 26.
`
`But PO ignores and fails to rebut Petitioners’ mapping and the control that is
`
`explicitly described in Chagny. As the Board found at Institution, software program
`
`296 (i.e., the power system controller) exerts control “by providing activity input
`
`202 to frequency selector module 215 of controller module 210, which changes the
`
`switching frequency in response to activity input 202.” Inst. Dec. (Paper 11), 18
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`(citing EX1004, 4:35-37, 4:40-43, 4:62-63, 4:66-5:3, 5:9-12). Thus, nothing
`
`prevents Chagny’s software program 296 (or alternatively Chagny’s “I/O controller
`
`hub” ICH2808) from serving as the “power system controller.”
`
`B.
`
`Hwang’s microprocessor is a “power system controller”
`
`As explained in the Petition and illustrated in annotated Figure 1 below,
`
`Hwang discloses a power system including a power converter 100 and a smart load
`
`104 having a microprocessor that serves as a power system controller. Pet., 56-60.
`
`“smart load” including
`power system controller
`
`standby signal
`(i.e., signal characterizing
`a power requirement)
`
`power converter
`
`EX1006, Fig. 1 (annotated); EX1002,¶174.
`
`8 See Pet., 26 n.4; EX1004, Fig. 2A, 4:46-61.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`PO repeats the same failed argument from its Preliminary Response that
`
`Hwang does not disclose a power system controller. PO argues that “[n]othing in
`
`Hwang indicates that Hwang’s microprocessor is controlling the power system.”
`
`POR, 49; see also POPR, 32.
`
`PO’s arguments fail for at least two reasons. First, they are legally misplaced.
`
`As the Board explained at Institution, the claims do not require that the “power
`
`system controller” perform “additional control functions” beyond those recited in
`
`the claims. Inst. Dec., 26.
`
`Second, Hwang’s microprocessor does exert control over the power system.
`
`Hwang’s microprocessor sends the standby signal to “instruct the controller 105”
`
`within power converter 100 to enter a standby mode, during which PWM stage 103
`
`of the power converter may enter a pulse-skipping mode. EX1006, [0021], Fig. 1;
`
`see also id., [0031]; Pet. 48-50, 56-60. Thus, Hwang’s microprocessor is a “power
`
`system controller.”
`
`VI. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2, 7, 12, 17
`
`Claim 29 recites that the power converter controller is configured to control
`
`the duty cycle of the power switch “as a function of said output characteristic and in
`
`accordance with said signal.” PO contests the disclosure of the “in accordance with”
`
`9 For claims 7, 12, and 17, PO relies on similarities to claim 2. POR 32, 51.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`limitation for both Chagny and Hwang. But as explained below, PO’s arguments
`
`are wrong and misplaced.
`
`A.
`
`Chagny discloses the “in accordance with” limitation because duty
`cycle control depends on switching frequency
`
`As described in the Petition and illustrated in Fig. 2A below, Chagny’s power
`
`converter controller provides signal 212 (i.e., another signal) to control the duty
`
`cycle of the power switch (i) as a function of feedback from the regulated DC voltage
`
`output 295 (i.e., as function of said output characteristic), and (ii) in accordance with
`
`Chagny’s “activity input 202” signal (i.e., said signal indicating the system
`
`operational state of the load). EX1004, 4:63-5:5, 5:28-31, 5:34-46; Pet., 20-21.
`
`software program
`
`signal to control
`duty cycle of power switch
`
`power switch
`
`processor
`
`“activity input 202”
`(i.e., signal indicating
`system operational
`state of load)
`
`power
`converter
`controller
`
`feedback
`
`power converter
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner Response
`USP 8,477,514
`
`EX1004, Fig. 2A (annotated); EX1026,¶28.
`
`As shown in Figure 2A, signal 212 controls Chagny’s power switch at a
`
`switching frequency determined by frequency selector module 215 based on the
`
`“activity input 202” signal. EX1004, 4:66-5:2 (“The frequency selector module 215
`
`is operable to receive the activity input 202 … and select a switching frequency 216
`
`… .”), 5:28-31 (describing generation of control signal 212 at the selected switching
`
`frequency), 5:34-46; EX1002,¶73.
`
`PO contends that “duty cycle” 10 and “switching frequency” are separate
`
`concepts, and Chagny’s “activity input 202 sets the switching frequency,” but “not
`
`the duty cycle.” POR, 33. PO’s argument mischaracterizes the c