`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owners.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S PRELIMINARY REPLY
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2024-00808
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0179IP2
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`THE PETITION ADDRESSES THE “CONTROL COMPONENT”
`ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT COURT’S CONSTRUCTION ............. 1
`
`PATENT OWNER MISCHARACTERIZES THE PETITION’S ANALYSIS
`OF THE “CONTROL COMPONENT” .......................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2024-00808
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0179IP2
`
`
`Citing the claim construction order (EX-2002) in parallel litigation, Patent
`
`Owner (PO) argues that the Petition fails to show a particular structural element
`
`(“step 762” of FIG. 7C) of the term “control component” according to the means-
`
`plus-function (MPF) interpretation. POPR, 7-19. This argument ignores the
`
`straightforward analysis of the Petition that fully addresses the district court’s MPF
`
`interpretation of this element (i.e., Ground 2). Pet., 54-76. PO wrongly focuses
`
`solely on ground (Ground 1A) that was offered under an alternative plain-and-
`
`ordinary meaning (PAOM) construction. POPR, 15-18.
`
`
`
`THE PETITION ADDRESSES THE “CONTROL COMPONENT”
`ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT COURT’S CONSTRUCTION
`
`After the Petition was filed, the district court issued a claim construction
`
`order, providing a MPF construction of “control component.” EX-2002. As PO
`
`correctly observed, with respect to “control component,” “the court has adopted a
`
`claim construction that is similar to Apple’s IPR (and district court) construction”
`
`except for minor differences. POPR, 8. Petitioner’s proposed construction in the
`
`Petition and the court’s construction for claims 1 and 19 are shown in the table
`
`below. EX-2002, 6-9; POPR, 8-9, Pet., 4-6. The same term in claim 20 is similarly
`
`construed. Id.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed
`Construction in IPR
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2024-00808
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0179IP2
`
`
`“control
`component”
`in claims 1
`and 19
`
`one of the switches shown in
`Figures 5A–6 and described at
`5:52–6:5, 6:9–16 and the
`processor (also referred to as
`microprocessor,
`microcontroller, or CPU) that
`performs the algorithm shown
`in Figures 7A–C and described
`at 6:52–8:40; and equivalents
`thereof
`
`a microcontroller, a processor, a
`microprocessor, or a CPU
`
`that performs the algorithm
`shown in Steps 706 through 716
`in Figure 7A, with reference to
`all steps shown in Figure 7B
`other than Step 734 and all steps
`shown in Figure 7C,
`
`or the algorithm described in the
`corresponding text, See, e.g.,
`7:20–7:34, 7:42–7:52, 7:60–8:40,
`and equivalents thereof.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of the “control component” in this IPR
`
`fully addresses the district court’s construction. As shown in the table above,
`
`Petitioner’s construction is more thorough than the court’s construction because it
`
`did not omit steps and descriptions of FIGS. 7A-7B and the “corresponding text.”
`
`EX-2002, 7-8. Moreover, even under the court’s construction, the Petition’s
`
`analysis demonstrates obviousness of the challenged claims.
`
`The Petition provides fulsome analysis that addresses both the court’s
`
`construction and the more thorough construction in the Petition. Pet., 55-76
`
`(Grounds 2A-2B). Indeed, the Petition offers arguments under two alternative
`
`constructions—(1) Ground 1 under PAOM (in case 112(f) does not apply), and (2)
`
`Ground 2 under the MPF construction—and the Petition’s MPF construction
`
`identifies, as corresponding structures, substantially all of the steps in FIGS. 7A-
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2024-00808
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0179IP2
`
`
`7C of the ’830 patent. Pet., 3-6. The particular step—“step 762” (“compute output
`
`p to power supply; output p to power supply”) of FIG. 7C—that PO alleges is
`
`missing is expressly discussed in the Petition. Pet., 72-73 (citing APPLE-1003
`
`(Expert Decl.), [229]-[231]). Moreover, the Petition explains “the software
`
`executing on the microprocessor outputs a corresponding control signal to the
`
`power supply in accordance with the user [i]nput.” Pet., 73. This analysis is
`
`explained by Dr. Hannaford. APPLE-1003, [229]-[231] (describing the combined
`
`system computes and outputs a control signal to the power supply according to
`
`“user input adjusting the magnitude (e.g., height, frequency, etc.).”)
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER MISCHARACTERIZES THE PETITION’S
`ANALYSIS OF THE “CONTROL COMPONENT”
`
`PO’s sole substantive argument—that the Petition fails to address the “step
`
`762” of FIG. 7C—ignores Grounds 2A-2B that address Petitioner’s claim
`
`construction (which covers the district court’s construction). Pet., 55-76. PO
`
`improperly focuses only on Ground 1A. POPR, 15-18. As to Grounds 2A-2B, PO
`
`simply references back to its discussion of Ground 1A, ignoring Ground 2A-2B’s
`
`additional analysis and mischaracterizing the Petition as “rel[ying] on the same
`
`disclosures as for the power supply of limitation [1c] and the processor and
`
`algorithm of the control component of limitation [1f] in Ground 1A.” POPR, 18-
`
`19. Based on this faulty analysis, PO’s argument fails and should be rejected.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 25, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2024-00808
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0179IP2
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Sangki Park/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Thomas Rozylowicz, Reg. No. 50,620
`Sangki Park, Reg. No. 77,261
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2024-00808
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0179IP2
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on
`
`September 25, 2024, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Preliminary
`
`Reply were provided via email, to the Patent Owner by serving the email
`
`correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`Reza Mirzaie (Reg. No. 69,138)
`Qi (Peter) Tong (Reg. No. 74,292)
`Kristopher Davis (Reg. No. 62,063)
`Neil A. Rubin (Reg. No. 67,030)
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`(310) 826-7474
`rak_revelhmi@raklaw.com
`ptong@raklaw.com
`kdavis@raklaw.com
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Crena Pacheco/
`Crena Pacheco
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`pacheco@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
