`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ZTE USA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS
`INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 11, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`CHARLES M. MCMAHON, ESQUIRE
`JIAXIAO ZHANG, ESQUIRE
`McDermott Will & Emery
`18565 Jamboree Road
`Suite 250
`Irvine, CA 92612
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`H. ANNITA ZHONG, Ph.D., ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL R. FLEMING, ESQUIRE
`JASON SHEASBY, ESQUIRE
`Irell & Manella, LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars
`Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, April 11,
`2019 commencing at 1:30 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Good afternoon. This is a hearing for IPR
`
`2018-00425, ZTE USA Inc., v. Fundamental Innovation Systems
`International, LLC. Judges Kokoski and Korniczky are participating
`remotely. Because they can't see the slides displayed in the room, please
`identify particular slide numbers as you move through your demonstratives.
`We also remind the parties that demonstratives are not evidence but instead
`are aids to assist the panel in understanding the arguments presented at the
`hearing today.
`
`We are aware of Petitioner's pending motion to strike portions
`of certain cross-examination testimony as well as Patent Owner's opposition
`and Petitioner's Reply. We're also aware of Petitioner's objections to some
`of Patent Owner's demonstratives that included reference to that testimony.
`At this time, we will reserve ruling on the motion and the objections. We'll
`allow discussion of the testimony here today but ultimately we will not
`consider it in our final written decision if we determine the scope of cross-
`examination was improper.
`
`Each side has 60 minutes to argue. As set forth in our Hearing
`Order Petitioner will begin by presenting its case. Patent Owner then will
`have the opportunity to respond. Petitioner, you may reserve rebuttal time
`not to exceed 30 minutes and Patent Owner may reserve surrebuttal time not
`to exceed ten minutes. Counsel, when you begin your argument please
`identify yourself and the party you represent for the record and also indicate
`how much time you would like to reserve for rebuttal or surrebuttal.
`Petitioner, you may begin when ready.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Good afternoon Judge Pettigrew, Judge
`
`
`Kokoski, Judge Korniczky. May it please the Board, I would like to reserve
`30 minutes for rebuttal please. My name is Charles McMahon from
`McDermott Will & Emery on behalf of the Petitioners ZTE USA. With me
`is Jiaxiao Zhang, also from McDermott Will & Emery and representing
`Petitioner.
`I note the Board's comments on the Motion to Strike and I won't
`
`
`address it any further unless there are questions except just to point out that
`there are -- one of the arguments that has come up, and I'll come back to this
`when we reach that point in the substantive discussion, is that Petitioners are
`trying to run away from certain testimony and that's what the purpose of the
`Motion to Strike. That couldn't be further from the truth. The testimony I
`think that was given throughout that deposition is consistent with our case
`and has been consistent with our case since the Petition stage. We embrace
`that testimony and frankly, if it had been a few questions here or there, we
`probably would have let it go. I have not seen a scope violation of this
`magnitude and we felt the need to enforce the rules and seek the Motion to
`Strike, so that's the basis behind that.
`
`
`Turning to the substance. Essentially, and Judge Pettigrew I'm
`sorry, my computer was not getting along with the projector so I'm not going
`to have the slides on the wall but I will refer to them. I'll be --
`
`
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: That's all right. I have a copy of the
`slides.
`MR. MCMAHON: -- I'll be using them only sparingly. The
`
`
`patent in this case, the 655 patent, essentially comes down to combining
`three concepts. One of the concepts is that you have a device and you want
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`to be able to charge the battery in that device while also supplying current to
`the electronic system of the device and do so in a way that never starves the
`electronic system of the power it needs to operate and so you regulate
`through the use of a switch, or restrict as the patent says, the current that
`goes to the battery charging so that it doesn't interfere with the operation of
`the device, but to the extent current is available you provide that current to
`the battery.
`The second concept was to do that on a dynamic basis so for a
`
`
`variety of reasons, the amount of current or voltage that the electronic
`system requires may change over time and so the ability to adapt and adjust
`the amount of current going to the battery depending on what the system
`needs to operate at that particular time was the second concept.
`
`
`The third concept was to use switch mode circuitry to power the
`device and to charge the battery, largely because of its efficiency which was
`well know. All three of those concepts were very well known in the art.
`They are presented in the prior art that we have asserted in our grounds and
`as Mr. Geier has testified they were also well known concepts in the art
`more generally, particularly the idea of switch mode circuitry being more
`efficient.
`So the Veselic prior art reference, and when I use the word
`
`
`Veselic I will refer to the prior art Veselic. When I refer to the challenged
`patent I'll say 655 patent just to avoid any confusion there. The Veselic
`prior art reference described the first and central concept that is presented in
`the 655 patent which is that you use a switch to control the current that goes
`to the battery charging versus the current that goes to the electronic system
`and to do that to restrict when necessary current that goes to charging 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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`battery. Again, to preserve the necessary current voltage power to operate
`the system, and the Veselic prior art reference was very explicit about that
`being the purpose of using that switch and using that topography of the
`system and it's essentially exactly the same thing that the 655 patent
`presented in terms of trying to allocate power between battery charging and
`the operation of the system. In fact, both references specifically speak to
`being motivated by the use of USB power as the main power source and the
`limits that come with USB power, particularly at that time, as the motivation
`for wanting to be able to allocate current. In other words, USB element
`provides so much power you are going to need a chunk of that to operate the
`system, there will be some left over to charge the battery, you can use that,
`that's fine, but let's make sure charging the battery never interferes with
`powering the system and Veselic in the prior art reference expressly
`disclosed all of that.
`
`
`The second piece of the puzzle was the idea of changing the
`voltage reference depending on the particular mode of operation and
`Vyssotski provides that in states. Vyssotski basically says -- before I move
`to Vyssotski, sorry, let me just rewind a little bit and speak to Veselic
`because Veselic did acknowledge the possibility that there could be multiple
`modes and as there's been some discussion about the particular Blackberry
`embodiment that is described near the end of the 655 patent as an example
`of how the invention might be used and in that case there's a sleep mode and
`then another mode where the Blackberry device might be receiving
`messages or making a call and might request some of the power, and Veselic
`speaks to addressing both of those. That's about as far as the Veselic prior
`art reference goes in term of dynamic allocation.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`Vyssotski takes it much further and speaks to a device that has
`
`
`more modes for, or maybe more than that modes including a performance
`mode, that might require much more power for the electronic device and
`therefore has more of a need for the system to be able to adjust the voltage
`that is provided to the electronic device depending on the mode in which it's
`operating so that you're not wasting power on the electronic device giving it
`power when it doesn't need it. The idea here is that that's exactly what the
`655 patent speaks to when it talks about dynamically allocating this
`reference voltage, dynamically adjusting this reference voltage to account
`for what's happening in the electronic system at any given time. Vyssotski
`says you might want to do that because of different operating modes. You
`might also want to do that because of different clock frequencies of the
`processor at operating at different times. Some processors when they're in a
`battery mode operate a lower clock frequency when they're being powered
`by, for example a wall charger, they will operate at a higher clock frequency
`and may require additional power to do that.
`
`
`So Vyssotski addressed all of that and as Mr. Geier explained,
`as the Petition explained, it would have been obvious to combine those two
`concepts and frankly very easy to take the teachings of Veselic and the
`switch that's used to allocate power between the battery and the electronic
`system and improve it by incorporating the idea of a dynamic reference
`voltage as taught in Vyssotski.
`
`
`Now we illustrated that in one of the figures that has been used
`and I will refer to a slide here -- I think it's slide 5, yes slide 5 -- so this is the
`figure that has come up throughout the briefing where we show how the
`signaling might work in the combination between Vyssotski and Veselic,
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`and this was referenced in the Petition at pages 16 to 18 and 21 to 22. The
`idea here is that you're taking output voltage that comes from the decoder of
`Vyssotski and you're feeding it into the reference voltage of the voltage
`sensing circuit in Veselic so that the voltage sensing circuit can account for
`different modes of operation or different clock frequencies, whatever the
`electronic system may require.
`
`
`Now, in this figure this figure really is intended to show the
`logic flow. The intent behind this figure, and I think this is perfectly clear in
`view of Mr. Geier's testimony in the argument, was not that you would
`simply plug these two things together exactly like they're presented and
`expect everything to work. Obviously one of ordinary skill in the art has
`some basic working knowledge, more than a basic working knowledge, of
`how these systems would operate and how to make adjustments and just like
`the Supreme Court has cautioned in KSR we are not to treat one of ordinary
`skill in the art as an automaton that doesn't think. One of ordinary skill in
`the art has a brain and they have some working knowledge and they're
`allowed to use that in combining references. We're not here today to talk
`about anticipation, we're here to talk about obviousness and one of ordinary
`skill in the art under an obviousness analysis can use that ordinary skill in
`the art to recognize teachings of different references, recognize advantages
`of different references and combine them together and to do so in a way that
`makes sense. It doesn't make any sense, it wouldn't have made any sense to
`simply bolt Vyssotski into Veselic without thinking. One of ordinary skill in
`the art would have put some thought into that and Mr. Geier addresses this.
`
`
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Is that explained in Geier's declaration,
`it's paragraph 73 you're citing there?
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`MR. MCMAHON: So I would have -- paragraph 73 is actually
`
`
`one example. There other examples, paragraphs 81 to 83 is where Mr. Geier
`addressed in more detail the combination of, I'm sorry, is where Mr. Geier
`addressed more specifically the receiving of reference voltage from said
`electronic system. I should also point out at paragraphs 68 to 74 of Geier is
`where he talked in more detail in general of the combination of Veselic and
`Vyssotski.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: You said it's clear that this is meant to
`
`
`be a logic diagram and not just putting the two systems together that way.
`I'm trying to find where there's an indication in the record that that's the case.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Well I think if you read Mr. Geier's
`testimony in context -- let me start with basic principles here. In an
`obviousness analysis with two different electronic systems I think it's fair to
`presume that one of ordinary skill in the art is just not going to connect them
`together. Between Vyssotski and Veselic there's a certain amount of
`overlap, redundancy, if you just bolted the two things together. So one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have to use their ordinary skill in the art to
`combine the two references and Mr. Geier explains this and basically what
`he says is that Veselic teaches that you have this voltage reference signal
`that is an input to the voltage sensing circuit and it would have been obvious
`to one of ordinary skill in the art if you're using a system that has many
`modes or has different clock frequencies that you might want to dynamically
`adjust that voltage reference and Vyssotski explains exactly how to do that
`using logic.
`Of course the information for that, the information that drives
`
`
`that voltage, the different operating voltages of the electronic system is
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`going to come in some way from the electronic system and that's one of the
`disputes that arose sort of late in this process regarding the meaning from the
`electronic system, what it means to receive a reference voltage from the
`electronic system. Mr. Geier explained in the Petition long before Patent
`Owner raised that claim construction issue that this signal does in fact come
`from Vyssotski's electronic system. In our Reply --
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Mr. McMahon?
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZY: What is the electronic system?
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: So in Vyssotski I would say the electronic
`system is the information system that is described. I think that's the best
`interpretation of what the electronic system is in Vyssotski and as we
`explained in the Reply brief. That is an --
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Where is that in Mr. Geier's
`declaration?
`MR. MCMAHON: So I think that's paragraphs 81 to 83. Let
`
`
`me just pull this up. Paragraph 83. Mr. Geier addresses the proposed
`combination of the Veselic and Vyssotski and near the bottom of page 38
`near the end of paragraph 83 he says Vyssotski's decoder is part of the
`electronic system of the portable device, thus in the combined system the
`reference voltage is received from the electronic system.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: So are you saying that the decoder is
`the electronic system or are you saying the electronic system is something
`more than the decoder?
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Something more than the decoder is 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
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Okay. And as I recall from your
`
`
`Reply you said that the decoder receives a signal from the processor and the
`controlling inputs?
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Right.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Where's that in Mr. Geier's
`declaration?
`MR. MCMAHON: So Mr. Geier did not address the control
`
`
`inputs because we were addressing, at the Petition stage, we were addressing
`what we considered to be the natural interpretation of the electronic system
`as Mr. Geier explained in paragraph 83 where he says the decoder is part of
`the electronic system. In response to Patent Owner's argument that the
`meaning of the electronic system is actually narrower is a position we
`disagree with, but in response to that we made two arguments.
`
`
`First of all, we said -- this is in the Reply and in the Reply
`specifically at pages 2 to 5, we said first of all we disagree. The electronic
`system of Vyssotski is more than what Patent Owner says it is and the
`voltage itself is coming from the decoder. The decoder is part of the
`electronic system -- tell me if you want me to pause, I'm sorry I know you're
`pulling --
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: No, I'm listening. I'm just pulling out
`
`
`my Vyssotski.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Okay. So our first argument in the Reply
`was that as Mr. Geier explained, the decoder is part of the electronic system
`in Vyssotski and the voltage reference that is output by that decoder
`therefore is coming from the electronic system. Now, if you want to take the
`position that the electronic system is something narrower, which is what
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`Patent Owner contends and with which we disagree, then we would still
`argue that Vyssotski is teaching providing that voltage reference from the
`electronic system and this is why. First of all, let me set the context here.
`Again, not anticipation, obviousness. We argued in the Petition and in the
`Reply that the receiving of voltage reference in the electronic system was
`obvious in view of Veselic and Vyssotski and that is the case under our first
`argument in the Reply. It's also the case under our second argument in the
`Reply. The idea is that the voltage reference is driven by the processor. If
`that's really what we're focusing on here saying that the processor, the
`electronic system is somehow limited to the processor because that is the
`device that would have multiple modes or would operate at different clock
`frequencies, that is also the device that necessarily drives the reference
`voltage.
`Now the specific embodiment that Vyssotski describes says that
`
`
`those voltage references would be received by the decoder in some way and
`would have originally been provided by the manufacturer of the processor
`that is operating at the different voltages and in the specific embodiment of
`Vyssotski the way it accomplishes the control is to provide an encoding
`using these control signals 255 that are sent to the decoder which has already
`been pre-loaded with the different voltages that the processor can operate at
`under different conditions and those control signals, 255, merely specify
`which voltage to use and then the decoder outputs that voltage. So in that
`sense --
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: As I understand Patent Owner's
`
`
`argument, I think they're saying that in your Petition you've identified the
`decoder as the electronic system and now in response to their expert's
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`testimony you're trying to enhance what the electronic system is to say that
`it's either this information management system which is 100 and that's
`shown in figure 1 of Vyssotski which has a lot of information there, or the
`decoder and the processor is the electronic system, and I guess what my
`question was where does your expert, Mr. Geier, discuss this position that
`the electronic system would be the information system 100 or the processor?
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: So Mr. Geier addressed it, again back to
`paragraph 83 where he pointed to the decoder, but what he said specifically
`is important. He said Vyssotski's decoder is part of the electronic system of
`the portable device.
`
``
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: But where does Mr. Geier or anyone
`discuss what the other part of the electronic system is?
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: I'm not sure that they did but I don't think
`that they needed to. In other words, the voltage reference is coming from
`the decoder. Mr. Geier said the decoder is part of the electronic system,
`therefore the voltage reference is coming from the electronic system. There
`are other parts of the electronic system, and if you read Vyssotski it's clear
`what those are but it's not necessary to explain those in order to establish all
`that the claim requires which is simply that the voltage reference comes
`from the electronic system. Mr. Geier in the outset addressed that and the
`Petition addressed it too pointing to the decoder and saying the decoder is
`part of the electronic system.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Okay. Let me address -- and I'm kind
`of interrupting your flow -- but one of the other arguments that the Patent
`Owner makes is that the electronic system is different from the power supply
`
`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
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`and they argue that the decoder is part of Vyssotski's power supply. Could
`you address that point?
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Certainly. And that was the second piece
`of the argument that we presented in Reply, again having seen what they
`said in their response we addressed it on two levels. First of all we spent
`most of the time here talking about the first argument. The second argument
`was even if you assume that the electronic system is more narrowly defined
`and that the power supply is not part of the electronic system and that the
`decoder in Vyssotski --
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: And do you agree with that part?
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: I do not agree with their argument.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Do you agree that the electronic
`system is different from the power supply in the 655 patent?
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: I don't think that that construction is a
`reasonable claim construction, no. I agree that there is a figure that shows
`components of and identifies different components, you know, block
`diagram. I don't think that leads to the definitive conclusion that the
`electronic system excludes the power supply. But even if it does --
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Well, hold on.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Yes, go ahead.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: I'll let you get to the point.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Sure.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: But so we talked about the figure but
`also the specification talks about how the system has a power supply and the
`electronic system.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: It does.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: That seems to suggest that there are
`
`
`two -- they could be two different I guess elements.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Yes. But I don't think the specification --
`in other words, yes. The specification in enumerating the parts does speak to
`both of those things but I don't see anything in the specification that clearly
`says those are two distinct non-overlapping and highly separate systems. In
`other words, I don't see anything in the specification that would lead to
`import that detail into the claim and say that the electronic system is
`mutually exclusive from the power supply, and in fact --
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Claim 3 does seem --
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Go ahead.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Go ahead and finish.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: I'm sorry.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Claim 3 does suggest that there's a
`power supply that feeds into the electronic system and I'm paraphrasing, I'm
`not using the exact language.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Sure.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: But at least claim 3 seems to suggest
`that they are two different limitations.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: I don't necessarily agree with that because I
`think the power supply can be part of the electronic system and still power
`the electronic system. I don't think -- again, Patent Owner is drawing a
`boundary between these two things that I don't think the claims or the
`specification support. I understand that there could be that interpretation. I
`don't think that's the right construction of the claims. But even if it were, as
`
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`I said, there is a second argument which I'll address but I don't want to get
`ahead of you.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Go ahead, please.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Okay. So the second argument is this. If
`you assume that the decoder is part of the power supply and that the correct
`interpretation is power supply is independent of and mutually exclusive of
`the electronic system, ultimately this information is still coming from the
`electronic system because it is the processor that is selecting the mode. It is
`the processor that must communicate what mode it's in and that is ultimately
`driving the reference voltage that should be selected and the processor does
`that with the control lines that are sent to the decoder.
`
`
`At the end of the day, that's a simple implementation detail.
`You could put that logic in the processor and have the processor output a
`reference voltage or you could put that logic in the decoder and have the
`processor output control signals and then have the decoder output the
`reference voltage. There's nothing special about that and there's nothing in
`the 655 patent that indicates there's anything special about that. There's one
`passing reference in the specification that says that the reference voltage can
`be received from the electronic system. That is not something magically
`linked to what is allegedly invented here. So --
`
`
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: But isn't that what's claimed?
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Mr. --
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Go ahead. I'm sorry.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: -- I hear your argument. Where is that
`supported by Mr. Geier? Are you still relying on paragraphs 81 to 83?
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Yes.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Of his declaration?
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Okay.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: I'm sorry, Judge Pettigrew.
`
`
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: I'm sorry. That is what's claimed
`
`
`though, receiving your reference voltage from said electronic system --
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Yes, and so –
`
`
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: -- despite it being a so-called passing
`reference in the specification?
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: In the specification, right. So I agree with
`that and I'm not trying to run away from that. Again, there's two arguments
`in response to that. One is that I think the reasonable interpretation of the
`electronic system is that it is the broader system and clearly in Vyssotski, as
`Mr. Geier said, the reference voltage is coming from the electronic system.
`But even under the narrower interpretation, that reference voltage is driven
`by control signals that are themselves clearly coming from the electronic
`system under the narrower interpretation. We're talking about obviousness
`here. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that that's
`simply an implementation detail where you put that logic. All it is is logic
`and it's been implemented in the decoder, it could easily be implemented in
`the processor.
`
`
`So under either interpretation, the reference voltage is coming
`from the electronic system, or let me say that differently. Under either
`interpretation it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
`using their brain and their ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the invention in
`view of Vyssotski and Veselic. Any other questions on reference voltage?
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Not at this time.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Okay. So I'm not going to address every
`
`
`single claim limitation. Most of them are not in dispute. I'll kind of skip
`ahead to what I think is another point of discussion which is the switch mode
`circuitry.
`So as I said at the beginning there were three main pieces
`
`
`recited in the claims. The third is the idea of using switch mode circuitry.
`Mr. Geier addressed this extensively in support of the original Petition. He
`walked through the background of how switch mode circuitry works. He
`talked about what those of ordinary skill in the art knew. He cited, in
`addition to the three main references, he cited a number of supporting
`references as explaining switch mode circuitry and providing examples of
`their efficiency and basically what he said is that what the claim of the 655
`patent is calling for is a Buck converter which was a very well known form
`of switch mode circuitry that necessarily stepped down the voltage and if it's
`working as it's supposed to, very well in many instances would increase the
`current.
`Now whether it increases the current in a particular instance
`
`
`varies by the design of that particular Buck regulator, Buck converter, and
`Mr. Geier addressed that. But it was obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
`art that you could use a Buck converter to increase the current and with ideal
`components, that's actually a necessary feature of the design. Now when
`you're not using ideal components if you don't choose them carefully the
`efficiency's going to drop a little bit and maybe the output current is not
`going to exceed the input current but certainly those of skill in the art knew
`that Buck converters could be used to increase the current on the output side
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`and in fact there were many examples of that, as Mr. Geier explained. Do I
`see a question? No. So that addresses claim 2. Claim 3 goes into more
`specifically the switch mode circuitry and that's where Mr. Geier --
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Mr. McMahon, I have a question for
`you please.
`MR. MCMAHON: Yes. Go ahead.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: In Kranzen. Where is the switch mode
`
`
`circuitry shown in figure 1 and in figure 2? I know that you have a
`demonstrative No. 9 --
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: That's right.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: -- slide No. 9.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: You have the switch mode battery
`charging circuitry shown there in the red, well I guess, in red.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: That's right.
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Is it everything in red or just
`everything that's in that box?
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Well I think -- I'm sorry, I'd like to answer
`that yes or no. It is everything that's in that box, I think the switch that is
`also highlighted is part of it because that is in line with the battery. So one
`thing that I think we've gotten tripped up on here is that in another figure,
`and it might even be slide 8, yes, so slide 8 is figure 1 of Kranzen and it
`specifically references the battery charger --
`
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Excuse me, I think that's slide 7.
`
`
`MR. MCMAHON: Slide 7, yes. Thank you for correcting me.
`I'm sorry about 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
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Okay.
`
`
`MR, MCMAHON: Slide 7 shows figure 1 of Kranzen and 130
`
`
`is labeled the battery charging circuit and in Kranzen, what Kranzen was
`teaching
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
