throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: February 22, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC
`(d/b/a ON SEMICONDUCTOR),
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`____________
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC, d/b/a ON
`Semiconductor, filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 12, 16, 18,
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,107,851 (Ex. 1001, “the ’851 patent”).1 Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Power Integrations, Inc., filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is
`authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and
`any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon
`consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude the
`information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the
`challenged claims of the ’851 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner identifies as related matters the following two district court
`proceedings: Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 1:04-cv-01371 (D. Del.), and Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., No. 1:08-cv-00309 (D. Del.). Pet. 2. The United
`States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed district court
`decisions in those two cases in Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013), and Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 843 F.3d 1315 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016). See Pet. 2.
`
`
`1 Of the claims challenged in the Petition, claims 16 and 20 were introduced
`or amended during reexamination of the ’851 patent (see Reexamination
`Application No. 90/008,324) and appear in Ex Parte Reexamination
`Certificate US 6,107,851 C1. Ex. 1002. Thus, all references to those claims
`of the ’851 patent are to the claims as issued in the Reexamination
`Certificate.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`Petitioner also identifies as a related matter the reexamination of the
`’851 patent. Id. In addition, Petitioner concurrently filed a petition
`(IPR2016-01599) for inter partes review of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 19 of
`the ’851 patent. Id. at 2–3.
`
`B. The ’851 Patent
`The ’851 patent relates to switch mode power supplies, which convert,
`for example, an AC voltage at a wall socket to a DC voltage used to power
`an electronic device. Ex. 1001, 1:5–21. A switch mode power supply may
`incorporate a pulse width modulated (PWM) switch to maintain a steady DC
`voltage. Id. The PWM switch uses an oscillator and related circuitry to vary
`the frequency of the switch. Id.
`According to the ’851 patent, a common problem with switch mode
`power supplies is the electromagnetic interference (EMI) generated at the
`switching frequency of the switch. Id. at 1:22–40. The ’851 patent explains
`that, at the time of the invention, it was known that EMI could be reduced by
`varying, or jittering, the frequency of the oscillator contained in the PWM
`switch controller. Id. at 3:9–30. Jittering allows the switching frequency of
`the switch to be spread over a larger bandwidth, which minimizes the peak
`value of the EMI generated by the power supply at each frequency. Id. at
`3:22–25.
`Figure 1 of the ’851 patent illustrates a known power supply using a
`PWM switch and frequency jitter circuitry external to the PWM switch for
`varying the switch frequency. Id. at 3:12–17, 4:37–39, Fig. 1 (labeled
`“PRIOR ART”). The ’851 patent describes shortcomings of the EMI
`reduction scheme shown in Figure 1. For example, the amount of frequency
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`jitter itself will vary due to variations in the line voltage and output load. Id.
`at 3:31–34, 6:13–17.
`The ’851 patent purports to overcome shortcomings of external
`frequency jitter circuitry by including a frequency variation circuit that is
`internal to the PWM switch itself. According to the ’851 patent, an internal
`frequency variation signal has an advantage over the frequency jitter
`operation of Figure 1 “in that the frequency range of the presently preferred
`pulse width modulated switch is known and fixed, and is not subject to the
`line voltage or load magnitude variations.” Id. at 6:13–17 (reference
`numeral omitted). Moreover, the ’851 patent continues, a power supply
`containing a PWM switch with an internally generated frequency variation
`signal will have a reduced size and overall cost as compared to the prior art
`power supply shown in Figure 1 with an externally generated frequency
`variation signal. Id. at 6:21–24. The ’851 patent also describes an
`alternative power supply embodiment containing a regulation circuit with a
`switching frequency that varies according to an internal frequency variation
`signal and has the same advantages as the disclosed PWM switch with an
`internal frequency variation signal. Id. at 11:43–50.
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`Of the challenged claims, only claim 20 is independent. Claim 20 was
`added as a new claim during reexamination of the ’851 patent to replace
`independent claim 11, which was cancelled. Ex. 1002, 1:19, 2:23–45;
`Ex. 1016, 2, 6, 8 (Second Amendment and Response After Final, May 9,
`2009). Challenged claim 16 was amended during reexamination to depend
`from claim 20. Ex. 1002, 1:44–47. Claims 12 and 18 were not reexamined
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`and continue to depend from cancelled claim 11. Ex. 1001, 14:1–3, 14:37–
`41.
`
`Claim 20 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and reads:
`20. A regulation circuit comprising:
`a first terminal;
`a second terminal;
`a feedback terminal coupled to disable the regulation
`circuit;
`a switch comprising a control input, said switch allowing
`a signal to be transmitted between said first terminal and said
`second terminal according to a drive signal provided at said
`control input;
`a frequency variation circuit that provides a frequency
`variation signal, wherein the frequency variation signal is an
`internally controlled signal within the regulation circuit;
`an oscillator that provides an oscillation signal having a
`frequency range, said frequency of said oscillation signal
`varying within said frequency range according to said
`frequency variation signal, said oscillator further providing a
`maximum duty cycle signal comprising a first state and a
`second state; and
`a drive circuit that provides said drive signal when said
`maximum duty cycle signal is in said first state and said
`regulation circuit is not disabled.
`
`Ex. 1002, 2:13–45.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 12, 16, 18, and 20 of the ’851 patent are
`unpatentable based on the following grounds:
`
`References
`SMP2112 and Thompson3
`Lin,4 Unitrode,5 and Balakrishnan6
`
`
`Challenged Claims
`Basis
`§ 103(a) 12, 16, 18, and 20
`§ 103(a) 12, 16, 18, and 20
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Statutory Bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`On November 18, 2015, Petitioner entered into a Merger Agreement
`with Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. (“Fairchild”). Prelim.
`Resp. 1; Ex. 2001. The Petition was filed on August 11, 2016. The merger
`was completed five weeks later, on September 19, 2016. Ex. 1032; Paper 6
`(Petitioner’s Revised Mandatory Notices).
`Patent Owner asserts this Petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(b). Prelim. Resp. 1. Under § 315(b), “[a]n inter partes review may
`
`
`2 SMP211 PWM Power Supply IC, Regulated DC Output, Power
`Integrations, Inc. (Datasheet for SMP211) (Jan. 1996) (Ex. 1009).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,739,658, issued Apr. 14, 1998 (Ex. 1003).
`4 Feng Lin and Dan Y. Chen, Reduction of Power Supply EMI Emission by
`Switching Frequency Modulation, 9 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECS.
`132–37 (1994) (Ex. 1005).
`5 High Speed PWM Controller, Unitrode (Datasheet for UC1823, UC2823,
`and UC3823) (Apr. 1992) (Ex. 1006).
`6 Balu Balakrishnan, Three Terminal Off-Line Switching Regulator Reduces
`Cost and Parts Count, OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTY-NINTH INT’L
`POWER CONVERSION CONFERENCE, at 267–79 (Sept. 1994) (Ex. 1011).
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1
`year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of
`the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the
`patent.” Patent Owner asserts Fairchild was served with a complaint for
`infringement of the ’851 patent on October 20, 2004, more than a year prior
`to the filing of this Petition.7 Prelim. Resp. 1. Patent Owner alleges that
`prior to the merger, Petitioner and Fairchild entered into a Confidentiality
`Agreement “that addressed the parties’ ongoing legal proceedings,
`acknowledging that they ‘share a common legal and commercial interest’
`and ‘are or may become joint defendants in proceedings.’” Id. at 6 (quoting
`Ex. 2010, 7). Patent Owner further alleges: “Since Petitioner now owns
`Fairchild, Petitioner is successor-in-interest to the products that were found
`to infringe the ’851 patent.” Id. at 6–7. In addition, Patent Owner asserts:
`“Petitioner is a privy of Fairchild, despite the fact that the merger was not
`technically finalized until just after the filing of the Petition.” Id. at 8.
`Petitioner maintains that “Fairchild and its subsidiaries had no role in
`the decision to file the Petition, the content of the Petition, or the preparation
`of the Petition [and] did not contribute in any manner to the funding for the
`Petition.” Paper 6, 3. Thus, Petitioner contends, Fairchild and its
`subsidiaries “were not real parties in interest or a privy of Petitioner as of the
`filing of the Petition or at any time before the close of the merger on
`September 19, 2016.” Id.
`For the reasons presented by Petitioner, on this record, we are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Petition should be barred
`
`7 Case No. 1:04-cv-1371 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
`Delaware. See Ex. 2004 (“Complaint for Patent Infringement”).
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Panels of the Board have interpreted this statute
`(and associated rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b)) to mean “it is only privity
`relationships up until the time a petition is filed that matter.” Synopsys, Inc.
`v. Mentor Graphics Corp., Case IPR2012-00042, slip op. at 12 (PTAB Feb.
`19, 2014) (Paper 60); see also ARRIS Group, Inc. v. TQ Delta LLC, Case
`IPR2016-00430, slip op. at 6 (PTAB July 1, 2016) (Paper 9). We agree with
`the reasoning of those decisions. On this record, therefore, and for the
`reasons that follow, we are not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence
`that Fairchild was a privy of Petitioner before the filing of the Petition and,
`thus, we are not persuaded 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) bars institution of inter partes
`review.
`There is no allegation of privity at the time the complaint was served
`on Fairchild, in 2004, or that Petitioner controlled or could have controlled
`the lawsuit between Fairchild and Patent Owner. See Aruze Gaming Macau,
`Ltd. v. MGT Gaming, Inc., Case IPR2014-01288, 2015 WL 780607, at *8
`(PTAB Feb. 20, 2015) (“In the context of § 315(b), the goal of the
`preclusion is to prevent successive challenges to a patent by those who
`previously have had the opportunity to make such challenges in prior
`litigation. As such, the focus of our privity inquiry is on the relationship
`between the parties during the prior lawsuit.”). Patent Owner’s allegations
`of privity are directed, instead, to the events surrounding the merger and to
`the allegation that Petitioner is a proxy for Fairchild. Prelim. Resp. 6–8.
`Although not the exclusive factor for establishing privity, control of
`the requested review procedure is an important factor to establish privity in
`this context. Our Office Patent Trial Practice Guide explains that
`“[w]hether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`nonetheless constitutes a . . . ‘privy’ to that proceeding is a highly fact-
`dependent question.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012). “There
`are multiple factors relevant to the question of whether a non-party may be
`recognized as a . . . ‘privy.’” Id. “A common consideration is whether the
`non-party exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s
`participation in a proceeding.” Id. However, it is recognized that there is no
`definitive test regarding the degree of participation required to establish such
`control and, hence, to establish a privity relationship. Id.
`In ARRIS, the panel determined that patent owner’s evidence of an
`agreement of a future merger was insufficient to show any degree of control
`over the requested review procedure or even the opportunity to do so.
`IPR2016-00430, slip op. at 7 (Paper 9). Here, we are not persuaded, on the
`present record, that Patent Owner’s assertions regarding the Merger
`Agreement detailing a future merger, which was not yet completed at the
`time of filing this Petition, are sufficient to demonstrate the opportunity for
`control by Fairchild over this proceeding.
`Similarly, Patent Owner’s assertions regarding the pre-merger
`Confidentiality Agreement are insufficient to demonstrate that Fairchild
`exercised, or could have exercised, any control over this proceeding. The
`mere exchange of unidentified confidential information and recitations that
`the parties could be joint defendants in the future, without more, do not
`provide sufficient evidence that Fairchild has exercised, or could have
`exercised, any control over this proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Thus,
`the record lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate even the opportunity to
`control this review and, thus, to establish privity between Petitioner and
`Fairchild.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`Nor is there any persuasive evidence to support a conclusion that
`Petitioner is acting as a proxy for Fairchild. Compare RPX Corp. v. VirnetX,
`Inc., IPR2014-00171, slip op. at 9 (PTAB July 14, 2014) (Paper 57), where
`the Board concluded RPX was “at most, a ‘nominal plaintiff’ with ‘no
`substantial interest’ in [the] IPR challenges apart from those of its client,
`Apple.” Such is not the situation here.
`Accordingly, we determine that, based on the evidence presented at
`this stage of the proceeding, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) does not bar institution of
`this inter partes review.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from
`its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`The parties propose constructions for various terms recited in the
`claims. Pet. 17–19; Prelim. Resp. 40–41. For purposes of this decision, we
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`determine that only “frequency variation signal” requires express
`construction.
`Independent claim 20, added during reexamination, recites “a
`frequency variation circuit that provides a frequency variation signal,
`wherein the frequency variation signal is an internally controlled signal
`within the regulation circuit.” Ex. 1002, 2:2:33–36. Thus, claim 20
`explicitly requires the frequency variation signal to be internally controlled
`within the regulation circuit. Claim 16, which depends from claim 20,
`similarly requires an internally controlled signal.
`Claims 12 and 18 depend from cancelled claim 11 rather than
`claim 20. Ex. 1001, 14:1–3; 4:38–42. Claim 11 recites “a frequency
`variation circuit that provides a frequency variation signal.” Id. at 13:33–34.
`Thus, claim 11 does not explicitly recite an internally controlled frequency
`variation signal. During prior litigation, however, the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s construction of
`“frequency variation signal” as “an internal signal that cyclically varies in
`magnitude during a fixed period of time and is used to modulate the
`frequency of the oscillation signal within a predetermined frequency range.”
`Power Integrations, 711 F.3d at 1360–63 (construing identical “frequency
`variation signal” language in claim 1) (emphasis added).
`During that appeal, Fairchild argued that the district court improperly
`read features of the preferred embodiments into the claims. Id. at 1360.
`With respect to “frequency variation signal,” Fairchild contended the claim
`term was not limited to an internal signal and should be construed according
`to its plain and ordinary meaning as “a signal that is used to vary the
`frequency of the oscillation signal.” Id.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`The Federal Circuit disagreed with Fairchild. First, the court held that
`the term “frequency variation signal” does not have a plain and ordinary
`meaning. Id. at 1362. The court then turned to the written description of the
`’851 patent, which provides:
`That is, the switching frequency of the pulse width modulated
`switch 262 varies according to an internal frequency variation
`signal. This has an advantage over the frequency jitter operation
`of [the prior art circuit of] FIG. 1 in that the presently preferred
`pulse width modulated switch 262 is known and fixed, and is not
`subject to the line voltage or load magnitude variations.
`Id. at 1363 (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:12–18); see also Ex. 1001, 11:44–49
`(explaining the same advantages with respect to the regulation circuit
`embodiment in the ’851 patent). This description, the court held, “indicates
`that the internal character of the frequency variation signal is essential to the
`invention. It is the internal character of the signal that makes the frequency-
`jittering functionality ‘not subject to the line voltage or load magnitude
`variations.’” 711 F.3d at 1363 (emphases added). The court went on to state
`that “the patentee did not employ the term ‘frequency variation signal’ to
`refer to external signals, nor did the patentee consider external frequency
`variation signals as part of the invention. In fact, the patentee sought to
`alleviate problems with the prior art’s external frequency variation
`techniques.” Id. For these reasons, the Federal Circuit held that the district
`court properly limited the claimed “frequency variation signal” to an internal
`signal. Id.
`Petitioner acknowledges the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the
`district court’s construction. Pet. 19. Although stating this construction
`would be too narrow under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,
`Petitioner does not provide any support for that assertion or propose an
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`alternative construction. Id. Instead, in its patentability analysis Petitioner
`treats the “frequency variation signal” recited in claims 12 and 18 the same
`as the explicitly claimed internal frequency variation signal in claim 20.
`See, e.g., id. at 47; see also id. at 19 (asserting that the grounds presented in
`the Petition disclose the “frequency variation signal” under the district court
`construction). For its part, Patent Owner “agrees to use the same claim
`construction for ‘frequency variation circuit’ that is relied on by Petitioner
`and that was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.” Prelim. Resp. 41.
`Based on the parties’ arguments, and in view of the Federal Circuit’s
`determination that the internal character of the frequency variation signal is
`essential to the invention of the ’851 patent, we construe “frequency
`variation signal” in the same manner as did the district court and Federal
`Circuit—as “an internal signal that cyclically varies in magnitude during a
`fixed period of time and is used to modulate the frequency of the oscillation
`signal within a predetermined frequency range.”
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness over SMP211 and Thompson
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 12, 16, 18, and 20 of the ’851 patent
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination
`of SMP211 and Thompson. Pet. 19–50. Petitioner relies on the declaration
`testimony of Dr. Douglas Holberg (Ex. 1012) as support for its contentions.
`In response, Patent Owner argues that the asserted combination of references
`does not disclose or suggest the recited frequency variation circuit or the
`internal frequency variation signal required by the claims. Prelim. Resp. 41–
`51. Patent Owner also contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have had no reason to combine SMP211 and Thompson in the manner
`proposed by Petitioner. Id. at 51–57. For the following reasons, we
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`determine Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`on this ground.
`
`1. Overview of SMP211
`SMP211 is a datasheet for a “PWM Power Supply IC.” Ex. 1009, 1.
`The SMP211 chip is a monolithic integrated circuit that combines a high
`voltage power MOSFET switch and a PWM controller to be used in a switch
`mode power supply. Id. Figure 3 of SMP211 (annotated by Petitioner) is
`reproduced below:
`
`
`Pet. 6; see Ex. 1009, 2. As shown in annotated Figure 3, the SMP211 chip
`contains both a high-speed power MOSFET switch and a controller section
`(including an oscillator, PWM comparator, and drive circuit) to control and
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`drive the power switch. Ex. 1009, 1–2. The PWM switching frequency of
`the SMP211 is based on the frequency of the oscillator, which in turn is
`dependent on an external capacitance coupled to the CEXT pin. Id. at 3.
`We note that in the prior art power supply configuration in Figure 1 of
`the ’851 patent, the “PWM switch” is an SMP211 chip. Ex. 1001, Fig. 1.
`Also, during reexamination of the ’851 patent, the examiner determined that
`claims 16 and 20 were patentable over SMP211 in combination with the
`patentee’s admitted prior art (i.e., Figure 1 of the ’851 patent). Ex. 1018, 7
`(Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate, Aug. 9, 2010).
`
`2. Overview of Thompson
`Thompson discloses the use of frequency modulation to reduce noise
`generated by switches in a PWM switching system. Ex. 1003, Abstract.
`Figure 3 of Thompson is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 3 of Thompson illustrates PWM controller 300 electrically connected
`to switching transistors 302 and 303, which provide pulse width modulated
`signals to output device 306. Id. at 3:61–65. PWM controller 300 includes
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`PWM control unit 308, which contains timing circuit 314. Id. at 3:66–4:12.
`The frequency of the signal at timing output 316 is established by operating
`timing source 333 to bias timing input node 318. Id. at 4:18–20. In one
`embodiment, timing source 333 includes current source 324 and variable
`reactance 326 (preferably comprising a variable capacitance), which
`provides a fluctuating capacitance at timing input node 318, resulting in a
`frequency modulated timing signal at timing output node 316. Id. at 4:20–
`35. In a second embodiment, timing source 333 includes a varying current
`source to vary the frequency of timing circuit 314. Id. at 5:5–33, Fig. 4.
`Thompson states that the disclosed invention may be used in a switch
`mode power supply. Id. at 5:60–64. For example, as shown in Figure 6 of
`Thompson, a PWM controller with a PWM control unit similar to PWM
`control unit 308 may provide a variable reactance to switching transistors
`that selectively apply power to a transformer in a regulated power supply.
`Id. at 5:65–6:22.
`
`3. Analysis
`Petitioner contends that SMP211 discloses most of the limitations of
`independent claim 20, including a regulator circuit comprising a switch (the
`MOSFET in Figure 3 of SMP211), first and second terminals (DRAIN and
`COM terminals of the MOSFET), feedback terminal, oscillator, and drive
`circuit. Pet. 25–44; see id. at 27, 30, 40, 43 (Figure 3 of SMP211 with
`Petitioner’s annotations mapping SMP211 components to limitations of
`claim 20). For the recited “frequency variation circuit that provides a
`frequency variation signal, wherein the frequency variation signal is an
`internally controlled signal within the regulation circuit,” Petitioner relies on
`Thompson’s disclosure of a variable capacitance for modulating the
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`frequency of a timing circuit in a PWM controller. Id. at 31–38.
`Specifically, Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have coupled Thompson’s circuitry for modulating the frequency of a
`timing circuit to the CEXT pin of SMP211. Id. at 22–24, 35–38. For
`example, Petitioner proposes that circuitry in Thompson’s Figure 3 be
`combined with the SMP211 chip in the following manner:
`
`Petitioner’s proposed combination of
`Thompson and SMP211
`
`Pet. 24; see Ex. 1003, Fig. 3; Ex. 1009, 2. Petitioner asserts it would have
`been obvious to a skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Thompson and
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`SMP211 in this manner in order to reduce the switching noise generated by
`SMP211’s controller. Pet. 35.
`Petitioner further argues that “Thompson discloses that either
`embodiment of its frequency variation circuit may be incorporated on the
`same integrated circuit as the primary oscillator of its PWM controller.” Id.
`In particular, Petitioner cites claim 21 of Thompson, which requires the
`control unit, variable reactance, and modulator (shown in Figure 3 of
`Thompson) to be “embodied in circuitry of a single integrated circuit.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 1003, 9:45–47). Petitioner also cites claim 11 of Thompson,
`which requires the control unit and current source in Thompson’s second
`embodiment (Figure 4) to be “included in a single integrated circuit.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 1003, 9:3–4). Based on these claims in Thompson, Petitioner
`contends it would have been obvious to incorporate Thompson’s frequency
`variation circuit (e.g., the modulator and variable capacitance shown in
`Figure 3) onto the same integrated circuit as SMP211. Id. at 36. According
`to Petitioner, such incorporation is consistent with SMP211’s combination
`of a MOSFET switch and a switch mode power system controller in a
`monolithic integrated circuit. Id. at 35. When Thompson’s frequency
`variation circuit is located on the same chip as the PWM controller of
`SMP211, Petitioner continues, the frequency variation signal provided by
`the frequency variation circuit is “internally controlled,” as required by
`claim 20 of the ’851 patent. Id. at 36.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the
`combination of SMP211 and Thompson discloses or suggests a regulation
`circuit with an internally controlled frequency variation signal, as recited in
`claim 20. Prelim. Resp. 41–51. We agree. Claim 21 of Thompson, which
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`depends directly from claim 12 and indirectly from claim 1, recites a PWM
`controller comprising a PWM control unit and a timing source comprising a
`variable reactance (e.g., capacitance) and a modulator, all in a single
`integrated circuit. Ex. 1003, 4:34–35, 8:21–37, 9:5–14, 9:45–47.
`Thompson’s claimed PWM controller corresponds to PWM controller 300 in
`Figure 3 of Thompson. Id. at Fig. 3. Notably, a switch is not one of the
`components of the PWM controller recited in claim 21 of Thompson, just as
`switches 302 and 303 are not part of PWM controller 300 in Figure 3. The
`PWM controller recited in Thompson’s claim 11, corresponding to the
`controller in Thompson’s Figure 4, similarly does not include a switch.
`Therefore, although Thompson teaches incorporating into a single
`integrated circuit the components of a controller (e.g., an oscillator and drive
`circuit, as recited in claim 20 of the ’851 patent) as well as a variable
`capacitance and modulator (asserted by Petitioner to comprise a frequency
`variation circuit, as recited in claim 20), Thompson does not teach also
`incorporating into the integrated circuit a switch, such as the MOSFET in the
`SMP211 chip. And although SMP211 discloses a chip that includes both a
`switch and a controller, it does not teach incorporating a frequency variation
`circuit onto the same chip. Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s
`argument that it would have been obvious based on claims 21 and 11 of
`Thompson to integrate a switch, a controller (including an oscillator and
`drive circuit), and a frequency variation circuit in a single integrated circuit.
`See Pet. 36. Because Petitioner’s contention regarding the recited
`“internally controlled” frequency variation signal depends on its
`unpersuasive argument regarding integration of all claimed components onto
`the same chip, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`SMP211 and Thompson discloses or suggests an “internally controlled”
`frequency variation signal, which is required by claim 20 and, as the Federal
`Circuit held, is “essential” to the claimed invention.
`As discussed above, claims 12 and 18 depend from cancelled claim 11
`rather than independent claim 20. But as also discussed, we have construed
`the “frequency variation signal” required by these claims as an internal
`signal, similar to the internal signal explicitly recited in claim 20. Petitioner
`alleges that the combination of SMP211 and Thompson discloses every
`limitation of claim 11 in a similar manner as described with respect to
`claim 20. Pet. 47. Thus, for the same reasons discussed above with respect
`to claim 20, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combined
`references disclose or suggest the recited frequency variation signal.
`For these reasons, we determine the information presented does not
`show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing
`that independent claim 20, claim 16 depending therefrom, or claims 12 and
`18 would have been obvious over SMP211 and Thompson.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over Lin, Unitrode, and Balakrishnan
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 12, 16, 18, and 20 of the ’851 patent
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination
`of Lin, Unitrode, and Balakrishnan. Pet. 50–74. Petitioner relies on the
`declaration testimony of Dr. Holberg (Ex. 1012) as support for its
`contentions. In response, Patent Owner argues that the asserted combination
`of references does not disclose or suggest the recited frequency variation
`circuit and the internal frequency variation signal required by the claims.
`Prelim. Resp. 57–60. Patent Owner also contends a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have had no reason to combine the references in the manner
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01598
`Patent 6,107,851
`
`proposed by Petitioner. Id. at 60–61. For the following reasons, we
`determine Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`on this

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket