Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 52
`Entered: July 2, 2019
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`Finding No Challenged Claims are Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`Dismissing Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Evidence
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.53 and 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 52
`Entered: July 2, 2019
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`Finding No Challenged Claims are Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`Dismissing Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Evidence
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.53 and 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–11 (all claims) of U.S. Patent No. 7,893,655 B2
`
`(Ex. 1002, “the ’655 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”); see 35 U.S.C. § 311. On
`
`July 6, 2018, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–11 based on
`
`our determination that the information presented in the Petition
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`
`challenging claims 1–11 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
`
`over certain prior art references. Paper 9.
`
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (“Patent Owner”)
`
`filed a Patent Owner Response. Paper 22 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a
`
`Reply. Paper 32 (“Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply. Paper 41
`
`(“Sur-reply”).
`
`Petitioner supports its Petition and Reply with two declarations from
`
`Mr. James T. Geier (Exs. 1001 and 1016). Patent Owner relies on a
`
`declaration from Dr. Kenneth Fernald (Ex. 2010).
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike certain testimony of Mr. Geier that
`
`allegedly exceeds the scope of his direct testimony. Paper 43. Patent Owner
`
`filed an Opposition (Paper 45), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 49).
`
`An oral hearing was held on April 11, 2019. A transcript of the
`
`hearing is included in the record. Paper 51 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has not
`
`established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11 of the ’655
`
`patent are unpatentable. Petitioner’s motion to strike is dismissed.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The ’655 patent is being asserted in the following district court
`
`proceedings:
`
`(1) Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Huawei
`
`Investment & Holding Co., Case No. 2:16-cv-01424-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.);
`
`(2) Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-01425 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`(3) Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Case No. 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.);
`
`(4) Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`
`Case No. 2-17-cv-00124 (E.D. Tex.); and
`
`(5) Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-01827-N (N.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper 21.
`
`B. The ʼ655 Patent (Ex. 1002)
`
`The ’655 patent is titled “Charging and Power Supply for Mobile
`
`Devices.” Ex. 1002, at [54]. The patent discloses, in part, a power
`
`management method that permits a mobile device to use power from a
`
`power supply and then use excess power, if any, to charge the device’s
`
`battery. Id. at [57]. In general, a USB-compliant charging and power supply
`
`circuit in the ’655 patent includes switch-mode battery charging circuitry for
`
`receiving power from an external power source and for supplying output
`
`power through an output node to an electronic system of an electronic
`
`communication device and a battery. Id. The charging and power supply
`
`circuit also includes battery isolation circuitry having a semiconductor
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`switch connecting the output node to the battery. Id. The battery isolation
`
`circuitry senses voltage at the output node and variably restricts current to
`
`the battery when the voltage is below a minimum voltage value by
`
`operationally controlling the semiconductor switch as current passes through
`
`it. Id. During variable current restriction, the electronic system is supplied
`
`required power and the battery is supplied any additional available power.
`
`Id.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–11 of the ’655 patent. Claims 1, 3, and
`
`8 are the challenged independent claims, and are reproduced below:1
`
`A power management method for allocating power
`1.
`between a rechargeable battery and an electronic system, said
`electronic system having a power input and a plurality of modes
`of operation, the method comprising:
`
`[a] generating output power;
`
`[b] receiving a reference voltage from said electronic system;
`
`[c] determining, based on said reference voltage, a minimum
`voltage value needed at a node directly connected to said power
`input of said electronic system;
`
`[d] sensing that a voltage at said node is below said minimum
`voltage value; and
`
`[e] restricting, responsive to said sensing, current from said
`output power to said battery, thereby increasing power allocated
`to said electronic system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`Petitioner’s claim-numbering scheme (i.e., reference letters) is used
`for consistency.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`
`A USB-compliant charging and power supply circuit
`3.
`comprising:
`
`[a] switch-mode battery charging circuitry adapted to: receive
`external power from an external power source; and supply
`output power, through an output node, to: an electronic system
`of an electronic communication device; and a battery, via a
`switch;
`
`[b] said switch-mode battery charging circuitry having an
`integrated circuit and an inductor, said integrated circuit
`arranged to cooperate with said inductor to supply said output
`power with a current of greater magnitude than current of said
`external power;
`
`[c] battery isolation circuitry adapted to: receive a reference
`voltage from said electronic system;
`
`[d] determine, based on said reference voltage, a minimum
`voltage value needed at said output node;
`
`[e] sense that a voltage at said output node is below said
`minimum voltage value; and
`
`[f] control, responsive to said sensing, said switch to restrict
`current of said output power to said battery, thereby increasing
`a power allocated to said electronic system.
`
`
`An electronic communication device electrically
`8.
`connectable to an external power source, said device
`comprising:
`
`[a] a device housing;
`
`[b] a rechargeable battery contained within said housing;
`
`[c] an electronic system contained within said housing; and
`
`[d] a charging and power supply circuit contained within said
`housing, said charging and power supply circuit including:
`
`[e] switch-mode battery charging circuitry adapted to: receive
`power from an external power source; and supply output power,
`through an output node, to: said electronic system; and said
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`
`rechargeable battery, via a switch;
`
`[f] said switch-mode battery charging circuitry having an
`integrated circuit and an inductor, said integrated circuit
`arranged to cooperate with said inductor to supply said output
`power with a current of greater magnitude than current of said
`power received from said external power source;
`
`[g] battery isolation circuitry adapted to: receive a reference
`voltage from said electronic system;
`
`[h] determine, based on said reference voltage, a minimum
`voltage value needed at said output node;
`
`[i] sense that a voltage at said output node is below said
`minimum voltage value; and
`
`[j] control, responsive to said sensing, said switch to restrict
`current of said output power to said rechargeable battery,
`thereby increasing power allocated to said electronic system.
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art References
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`
`
`Reference
`Veselic
`Kranzen
`Vyssotski
`
`Description
`US 2004/0164708 A1
`US 7,570,020 B1
`US 2004/0019815 A1
`
`Date
`Aug. 26, 2004
`Aug. 4, 2009
`Jan. 29, 2004
`
`Exhibit
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–11 of
`
`the ’655 patent on the following grounds (Pet. 13):
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1
`
`2–11
`
`
`
`Basis
`(35 U.S.C. §)2
`103
`
`References
`
`Veselic and Vyssotski
`
`103
`
`Veselic, Vyssotski, and Kranzen
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Legal Principles
`
`To prevail on its challenge to the ’655 patent, Petitioner must
`
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims
`
`are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject
`
`matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
`
`including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art; and (4) when in the record, objective evidence of
`
`
`2
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16,
`2013. Because the application from which the ’655 patent issued was filed
`before this date, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`Even if Petitioner’s prior art references disclose all of the limitations in the
`
`challenged claims when combined, there must be evidence to explain why a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references to
`
`arrive at the claimed invention. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew,
`
`Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Innogenetics, N.V. v.
`
`Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that post-KSR
`
`“some kind of motivation must be shown from some source, so that the [trier
`
`of fact] can understand why a person of ordinary skill would have thought of
`
`either combining two or more references or modifying one to achieve the
`
`patented [invention]”)).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is a factual determination that
`
`provides a primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis.
`
`Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing
`
`Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18); see also Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950
`
`F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In determining the level of skill in the art,
`
`we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art
`
`solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made,
`
`the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active
`
`workers in the field. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus.,
`
`Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v.
`
`United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v.
`
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer science, or a related field, plus 2–3 years of experience with power
`
`supplies.” Pet. 6. Petitioner states that support for its position is found in
`
`the testimony of its declarant, Mr. Geier. Id. (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 24–26).
`
`Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention would have had “at least: (1) a Bachelor’s of Science
`
`degree in electrical engineering or similar discipline and an understanding of
`
`power supplies and battery charging circuitry, or (2) at least several years of
`
`experience working with power supplies and battery charging circuitry, or
`
`equivalents.” PO Resp. 16–17. Patent Owner states that support for its
`
`position is found in the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Fernald, and the
`
`educational level of the authors of the cited prior art, who do not have
`
`advanced degrees. Id. (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 43).
`
`Petitioner and Mr. Geier provide no reasoned justification for their
`
`identification of one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 6 (relying on
`
`paragraphs 24–25 of Mr. Geier’s declaration). Mr. Geier’s conclusory
`
`statement merely states that, “After considering such factors, it is my
`
`opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus 2–
`
`3 years of experience with power supplies.” Ex. 1001 ¶ 26. Conversely,
`
`Dr. Fernald supports his proposal with persuasive reasoning, explaining, for
`
`example, that based on the education level of the authors of the cited prior
`
`art, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have necessarily needed an
`
`advanced degree. See Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 43–44 (stating “Mr. Guthrie of the
`
`Veselic application, for example, has no advanced degrees”). Thus, we
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`adopt Patent Owner’s description of one of ordinary skill in the art, which is
`
`consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding. Our analysis and
`
`conclusions discussed below would be the same under either Petitioner’s or
`
`Patent Owner’s proposal.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review filed before November 13, 2018, claim terms
`
`in an unexpired patent are interpreted according to the broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`
`2131, 2142 (2016). Under this standard, absent any special definitions, the
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In
`
`re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the
`
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the
`
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy . . . .’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc.
`
`v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Neither
`
`
`3
`A recent amendment to this rule does not apply here because the
`Petition was filed on January 5, 2018. See Changes to the Claim
`Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018)
`(amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) for all petitions for inter partes review
`filed on or after November 13, 2018).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`Petitioner nor Patent Owner identifies any terms in the challenged claims
`
`that need to be construed. Because the dispositive issues in this case do not
`
`turn on the meaning of any claim term, we need not construe any terms.
`
`D. Obviousness over the Combined Teachings of Veselic and
`Vyssotski
`
`Petitioner asserts that independent claim 1 is unpatentable as being
`
`obvious over the combined teachings of Veselic and Vyssotski. Pet. 14–26.
`
`Petitioner provides supporting testimony from Mr. Geier. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 55–92; see also id. ¶¶ 33–53. Having now considered the
`
`evidence in the complete record established during trial, we determine that
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`claim 1 is unpatentable over Veselic and Vyssotski. We first describe the
`
`prior art that Petitioner seeks to combine to show that independent claim 1
`
`would have been obvious, and then analyze the merits of the combination.
`
`1. Overview of Veselic (Ex. 1004)
`
`Veselic is titled “Circuit and Method of Operation for an Electrical
`
`Power Supply.” Ex. 1004, at [54]. Petitioner contends Veselic is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 12. Patent Owner does not dispute that
`
`Veselic is prior art.
`
`Veselic discloses a device and method for powering a portable device
`
`and then using additional available power for charging the device’s battery.
`
`Ex. 1004, at [57]. Veselic asserts that there is “a need for a method and
`
`apparatus which allows standard computer data busses such as USB ports to
`
`simultaneously power portable devices 18 and their associated battery
`
`charge circuits 20.” Id. ¶ 31. Veselic’s Figure 4 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts an electrical schematic diagram of a battery charging circuit
`
`“which overcomes a number of the problems in the art.” Id. ¶ 47. Veselic
`
`explains that “the battery charge controller 20 receives power from an
`
`external source (VBUS) and feeds a portable device 18 and rechargeable
`
`battery or batteries 24 in parallel.” Id. ¶ 47. However, “the feed to the
`
`battery 24 is made via a semiconductor switch Q1” and “[c]ontrol of the
`
`current flow through the semiconductor switch Q1 is modulated by a voltage
`
`sensing circuit 30.” Id. The voltage sensing circuit “measures the voltage
`
`drop across the battery charge controller 20 and reduces the current flow
`
`through the semiconductor switch Q1 to the battery 24 when the voltage
`
`drop is too great.” Id. In this way, Veselic’s circuit modulates the power
`
`consumed “to stay within the limits of the power available from the USB
`
`port.” Id. ¶ 52.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`
`2. Overview of Vyssotski (Ex. 1006)
`
`Vyssotski is titled “DC-DC Controller with Integrated SMBUS
`
`Registers for Dynamic Voltage Positioning.” Ex. 1006, at [54]. Petitioner
`
`contends Vyssotski is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 12. Patent
`
`Owner does not dispute that Vyssotski is prior art.
`
`Vyssotski discloses a device and method for powering a portable
`
`device and then using additional available power for charging the device’s
`
`battery. Ex. 1006, at [57]. Vyssotski explains that electronic systems
`
`“typically include a DC-DC converter for providing DC power . . . within
`
`specified tolerances” and that “[t]ypical DC-DC converters incorporate a
`
`switching circuit, a controller circuit, resistors, and diodes, in combination
`
`with a single-stage LC filter.” Id. ¶¶ 7–8. Vyssotski further explains that
`
`modern computer systems “typically support a plurality of power operating
`
`states,” and that “manufacturers typically require that transitions between
`
`these power operating states take place very rapidly.” Id. ¶ 10. As a
`
`solution, Vyssotski provides “a method and a system thereof for selecting a
`
`voltage output reference required of a DC-DC converter” where “[t]he
`
`voltage output reference corresponds to an operating state of the power
`
`supply load.” Id. ¶ 14. Figure 2 of Vyssotski, which depicts this system, is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 “shows a block diagram of a DC-DC converter for selecting a
`
`voltage output reference required by the load.” Id. ¶ 22.
`
`Vyssotski describes “stor[ing] data corresponding to a respective
`
`voltage required by the load . . . for each of the plurality of operating states.”
`
`Id. ¶ 59. Vyssotski also describes a “decoder” that receives control signals
`
`“correspond[ing] to each of the possible operating state[s]” and “is operable
`
`to generate . . . voltage output reference 250, required by the load in
`
`response to the load’s current operating state.” Id. ¶ 61; see also id. ¶¶ 66–
`
`67, 74, Figs. 2, 3, 4A, 4B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`
`3. Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claim 1 is unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Veselic
`
`and Vyssotski. Pet. 14–26; Reply 2–9. Petitioner asserts that Veselic and
`
`Vyssotski disclose all of the limitations in claim 1, and that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in that art would have been motivated to combine the
`
`disclosures of Veselic with those of Vyssotski to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention. Id. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s assertions. PO
`
`Resp. 27–58; Sur-reply 1–9, 18–28.
`
`Reasons to Combine Veselic and Vyssotski
`
`Petitioner asserts that Veselic “is concerned in large part with
`
`‘ensur[ing] that the portable device 18 receives the power it requires for
`
`operation,’” and “purports to accomplish this goal by monitoring the voltage
`
`at the output of its battery charge controller and restricting the current
`
`delivered to the battery when this voltage is too low.” Pet. 14 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–49, 51, 86 (“[T]hrottling of power to the battery 24 is done
`
`so that the current always satisfies the needs of the portable device
`
`18 . . . .”); Ex. 1001 ¶ 69). Petitioner asserts that “Veselic further
`
`contemplates that a portable device may have different operational states,
`
`such as a ‘sleep’ state and a ‘wake’ state, requiring different levels of
`
`power.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 86). Petitioner explains that “[w]hile the
`
`minimum voltage could be fixed based on the maximum power needs of the
`
`portable device, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood
`
`that this would lead to unnecessary throttling of the current to the
`
`rechargeable battery (e.g., when the output voltage is below the minimum
`
`required for the ‘wake’ state, but above that required for the ‘sleep’ state).”
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`Id. at 14–15 (Ex. 1001 ¶ 70). According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art “would therefore have had a reason to provide a mechanism to
`
`adjust, based on the operating state of the device, the point at which the
`
`voltage sensing circuit of Veselic reduces the current flow through the
`
`semiconductor switch to the battery.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 71).
`
`Petitioner asserts that a person skilled in the art specifically “would
`
`have been motivated to look to the teachings of Vyssotski on the
`
`implications of the various power states.” Pet. 15. Petitioner asserts that
`
`Vyssotski discloses that “each operating state of an electronic system may
`
`require a different voltage input for proper operation,” and discloses “a
`
`‘decoder’ which receives control signals ‘correspond[ing] to each of the
`
`possible operating state[s]’ and ‘is operable to generate . . . [the] voltage
`
`output reference 250, required by the load in response to the load’s current
`
`operating state.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 53, 59, 61; see also id. ¶¶ 66–67,
`
`74, Figs. 2, 3, 4A, 4B).
`
`Petitioner asserts that “Vyssotski’s decoder can be easily incorporated
`
`into Veselic’s system with little or no modification to the teachings of either
`
`reference.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 73). According to Petitioner, Veselic
`
`explains that “its voltage sensing circuit ‘measures the voltage drop across
`
`the battery charge controller 20 and reduces the current flow through the
`
`semiconductor switch Q1 to the battery 24 when the voltage drop is too
`
`great,’ that is, when the voltage at the output of the battery charge controller
`
`is too low.” Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 47; Ex. 1001 ¶ 73). Veselic also
`
`describes an alternative in which voltage at the output of the battery charge
`
`controller is compared with “some reference voltage VREF.” Id. at 16 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 49; see also id. ¶ 78).
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`
`Petitioner further asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`“would have found it obvious to set ‘reference voltage VREF’ in the voltage
`
`sensing circuitry of Veselic based on the ‘voltage output reference’ of
`
`Vyssotski’s decoder” and that the “reference voltage VREF determines the
`
`minimum voltage that can be measured at the output of Veselic’s battery
`
`charge controller before current to the battery is throttled.” Id. (citing
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶ 73; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–53, 77). Petitioner asserts that “the minimum
`
`voltage required by a given system can change depending on its operating
`
`state,” and “Vyssotski’s voltage output reference is the minimum voltage
`
`required by the electronic system given its current operating state.” Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 37, 53, 57, 61; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–73). Petitioner concludes
`
`that “[b]y setting reference voltage VREF based on the output of Vyssotski’s
`
`decoder, the minimum voltage can be dynamically aligned with the actual
`
`needs of the system and the current flow to the battery will not be
`
`constrained unnecessarily.” Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 74).
`
`In response to Petitioner’s contentions, Patent Owner first argues that
`
`a skilled artisan would not have modified Veselic with the reference voltage
`
`from Vyssotski’s decoder because there would be little, if any, benefit to
`
`Veselic’s battery charging current as a result. PO Resp. 37–51; Sur-reply
`
`18–21. According to Petitioner, “[b]y setting reference voltage VREF based
`
`on the output of Vyssotski’s decoder, [Veselic’s] minimum voltage can be
`
`dynamically aligned with the actual needs of the system and the current flow
`
`to the battery will not be constrained unnecessarily.” Pet. 16. As Patent
`
`Owner notes, however, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Geier provides any
`
`persuasive analysis regarding the amount of increase in battery charging
`
`current that would result from modifying Veselic’s fixed reference voltage
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`with Vyssotski’s adjustable reference voltage. PO Resp. 38, 41. Patent
`
`Owner, relying on Dr. Fernald’s testimony, persuasively explains Veselic’s
`
`“battery is already receiving 499.3–499.7 mA out of the 500mA available
`
`current in sleep mode,” and the skilled artisan “would understand that the
`
`battery would at most gain 0.3–0.7mA in the charging current in sleep mode
`
`with an adjustable VREF.” Id. at 38–39 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 166–167;
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 86). Dr. Fernald testifies that this 0.3–0.7mA increase in
`
`charging current “may save 20–45 seconds [in charging time] over a 4–9
`
`hour charging period.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 168; see also PO Resp. 39, 42. Dr.
`
`Fernald persuasively testifies that incorporating Vyssotski’s decoder into
`
`Veselic would require one person-year of development time, and that
`
`achieving “a [0.14%] improvement[] in charging speed, translating to a
`
`saving of 20–45 seconds in charging time over a 4–9 hour period[,] would
`
`not have justified such an expense.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 168. In this regard,
`
`Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Geier, testifies that he did not know the threshold
`
`improvement to battery charging that would have motivated a skilled artisan
`
`to implement Petitioner’s proposed modification, but acknowledges that “1
`
`percent greater speed in battery charging might not be beneficial to a great
`
`degree depending on what the cost is to implement [the improvement].” Ex.
`
`2024, 207:17–208:4.
`
`In response to Patent Owner’s argument, Petitioner asserts that Patent
`
`Owner improperly limits its analysis to Veselic’s sleep state. Reply 6.
`
`According to Petitioner, Veselic’s “battery . . . receive[s] most of the
`
`available current when operating in its sleep mode,” and Patent Owner’s
`
`“analysis focuses improperly on one specific set of circumstances and
`
`misses the broader benefits of combining Veselic and Vyssotski.” Id.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`Petitioner asserts that, in the sleep mode, “it is easy to provide almost all
`
`available current to the battery because the electronic system and the battery
`
`are not competing for current,” and the “more challenging situation, which
`
`both Veselic and Vyssotski sought to address, is how much current to
`
`provide to the battery when the electronic system is competing for current.”
`
`Id. Petitioner contends that “Veselic provided a good solution that
`
`compared VBUS to VREF to make sure the electronic system was receiving the
`
`proper voltage for operation, but the Veselic system could not dynamically
`
`adjust to different operating states with different operating voltages.” Id.
`
`Petitioner continues that the skilled artisan “would have recognized that the
`
`solution could be made even better for devices with multiple operating states
`
`by incorporating Vyssotski’s dynamic reference voltage.” Id. Petitioner
`
`further argues that the “combined system would be able to tailor VREF on a
`
`dynamic basis to provide as much current as possible to the battery, even
`
`when the electronic system is competing for current, all without denying the
`
`electronic system the power it requires for operation.” Id. at 7. Petitioner
`
`concludes that Patent Owner’s analysis “ignores the broader teaching of”
`
`Veselic and “ignores the benefits provided during other modes of operation.”
`
`Id. at 7–8.
`
`We do not find Petitioner’s arguments to be persuasive. Petitioner
`
`does not explain adequately why a skilled artisan would modify Veselic
`
`when Veselic alone provides “as much current as possible to the battery,
`
`even when the electronic system is competing for current.” Id. at 7.
`
`Furthermore, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Geier (see, e.g., Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 68–74)
`
`persuasively identifies the “other modes of operation” that it alleges would
`
`benefit from the combination, or how much charging speed would be
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`increased with Petitioner’s proposed modifications. For example, Mr. Geier
`
`testifies that he does not know how much improvement would result from
`
`modifying Veselic with Vyssotski’s decoder. See, e.g., Ex. 2024, 140:16–17
`
`(“I don’t think I pointed out examples that used a different level of
`
`current.”), 141:1–3 (“I don’t remember another example given in those
`
`references explicitly where it gives a specific value different than this.”),
`
`143:18–20 (“I don’t recall stating that in my declaration specific numbers,
`
`. . . as far as savings [in charging time].”), 144:18–19 (“I didn’t specifically
`
`calculate how much gain there would be.”), 144:24–25 (“I don’t know
`
`specifically what the bounds of that range [of gain] would be.”). Similarly,
`
`neither Petitioner nor Mr. Geier addresses whether any purported current
`
`increase would justify the expense and complexity of incorporating
`
`Vyssotski’s decoder into Veselic. See, e.g., Ex. 2024, 207:17–208:16.
`
`Based on the evidence of record, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`
`evidence, including Dr. Fernald’s testimony, that a skilled artisan would not
`
`have believed that any potentially small benefits of Petitioner’s proposed
`
`modification would justify the expenses that would be incurred to include
`
`the extra hardware and software needed to incorporate Vyssotski’s decoder
`
`into Veselic. See, e.g., Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 166–168.
`
`Second, Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Veselic and
`
`Vyssotski because, in the Veselic embodiments at issue, a dynamic reference
`
`voltage would not result in any meaningful increase in the current received
`
`by the battery, even with a switch-mode battery charging circuit. PO Resp.
`
`44–51; Sur-reply 21–24. Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner’s motivation
`
`to combine Veselic and Vyssotski presupposes that a fixed reference voltage
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00425
`Patent 7,893,655 B2
`
`‘would lead to unnecessary throttling of the current to the rechargeable
`
`battery,’” and “[t]hat assumption is incorrect for the embodim
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
