Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 28
`Date: January 15, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERON, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 28
`Date: January 15, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERON, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`In the inter partes reviews in IPR2018-01152 and IPR2018-01153,
`Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) challenges claims 1–9 and 12–14 of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,698,558 B2 (IPR2018-00152, Ex. 1001; IPR2018-01153, Ex.
`1101; “the ’558 patent”), which is assigned to Qualcomm Incorporated
`(“Patent Owner”).
`As explained in detail below, the references applied against the
`challenged claims are identical in each of the cases. A joint hearing was
`held for these cases. The parties rely on the same declarants submitting
`substantially similar declarations in each case for testimonial evidence.
`Under these circumstances, we determine that a combined Final Decision
`will promote a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of these proceedings.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), addresses issues and
`arguments raised during the trial in these inter partes reviews. For the
`reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 12–14 of the ’558 patent are
`unpatentable in IPR2018-01152 and claims 1–9 of the ’558 patent are
`unpatentable in IPR2018-01153. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`A. Procedural History
`In IPR2018-01152, Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 2, “1152 Pet.”)
`challenging claims 12–14 of the ’558 patent. Patent Owner filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 8).1 We instituted trial on all grounds of
`
`
`1 Similar papers and exhibits were filed in each case with related numbering.
`References to papers and exhibits in this Final Written Decision refer to
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`unpatentability. Paper 9 (“1152 Dec. on Inst.”), 22–23. During trial, Patent
`Owner filed a Response (Paper 16, “1152 PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a
`Reply (Paper 20, “1152 Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply
`(Paper 23, “1152 PO Sur-reply”).
`In IPR2018-01153, Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 3, “1153 Pet.”)
`challenging claims 1–9 of the ’558 patent. Patent Owner filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 8). We instituted trial on all grounds of unpatentability.
`Paper 9 (“1153 Dec. on Inst.”), 22–23. During the trial, Patent Owner filed a
`Response (Paper 16, “1153 PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 19,
`“1153 Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 22, “1153 PO
`Sur-reply”).
`A combined oral hearing for these inter partes reviews was held on
`October 28, 2019, a transcript of which appears in the record in each case.
`Paper 29 (“Tr.”) (IPR2018-01152); Paper 27 (IPR2018-01153).
`B. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1. IPR2018-01152 Grounds
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 12–14 of the ’558 patent in
`IPR2018-01152 on the following grounds:
`
`
`filings in IPR2018-01152 unless otherwise specified by “1152” or “1153”
`preceding the citation.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`12, 14
`14
`13
`13
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`102(b)2
`103(a)
`103(a)
`103(a)
`
`References
`
`Chu3
`Chu, Blanken4
`Chu, Choi 20105
`Chu, Choi 2010,
`Myers6
`
`1152 Dec. on Inst. 22–23; 1152 Pet. 39–40, 72.
`In support of these grounds, Petitioner relies on the Declaration of
`Dr. Alyssa Apsel (Ex. 1003), the Reply Declaration of Dr. Alyssa B. Apsel
`(Ex. 1027), and the Deposition of Dr. Arthur Kelley (Ex. 1028) in support
`the Petition. Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Arthur Kelley
`(Ex. 2005) and Depositions of Dr. Alyssa Apsel (Ex. 2006; Ex. 2008).
`2. IPR2018-01153 Grounds
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 1–9 of the ’558 patent in
`IPR2018-01153 on the following grounds.
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35
`U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the
`’558 patent issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we
`apply the pre-AIA versions of the statutory bases for unpatentability.
`3 Wing-Yee Chu, et al., A 10 MHz Bandwidth, 2 mV Ripple PA Regulator for
`CDMA Transmitters, IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS 2809–2819
`(2008) (Ex. 1004, “Chu”).
`4 P.G. Blanken, et al., A 50MHz Bandwidth Multi-Mode PA Supply
`Modulator for GSM, EDGE and UMTS Application, 2008 RADIO
`FREQUENCY INTEGRATED CIRCUITS SYMPOSIUM (IEEE) 401–404 (2008)
`(Ex. 1010, “Blanken”).
`5 Jinsung Choi, et al., Envelope Tracking Power Amplifier Robust to Battery
`Depletion,” Microwave Symposium Digest (MTT), 2010 IEEE MTT-S
`INTERNATIONAL 1074–1077 (2010) (Ex. 1007, “Choi 2010”).
`6 Myers, et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,929,702 (Ex. 1012, “Myers”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`6, 8
`1–9
`
`
`1153 Dec. on Inst. 24–25; 1153 Pet. 39–40.
`Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Alyssa Apsel (1153
`Ex. 1103), the Reply Declaration of Dr. Alyssa B. Apsel (1153 Ex. 1127),
`and the Deposition of Dr. Arthur Kelley (1153 Ex. 1128) in support of the
`1153 Petition. Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Arthur Kelley
`(Ex. 2005) and Depositions of Dr. Alyssa Apsel (Ex. 2006, Ex. 2008).
`C. Related Proceedings
`Apple Inc. is identified as an additional real party-in-interest. 1152
`Pet. 2. The parties inform us that the ’558 patent was asserted against
`Petitioner in the litigation Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-
`01375-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal.) and against Apple in a proceeding before the
`International Trade Commission (“ITC”) captioned In the Matter of Certain
`Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing
`Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1065. 1152 Pet. 2; 1152 Paper 6, 2.
`D. The ’558 Patent and Illustrative Claims
`The ’558 patent is titled “Low-Voltage Power-Efficient Envelope
`Tracker” and discloses “[t]echniques for efficiently generating a power
`supply for a power amplifier” used in communication system transmitters.
`Ex. 1001, 1:30–31, code (54). The ’558 patent discloses that a
`transmitter typically includes a power amplifier (PA) to provide
`high transmit power for the output RF signal. The power
`amplifier should be able to provide high output power and have
`high power-added efficiency (PAE). Furthermore, the power
`amplifier may be required to have good performance and high
`PAE even with a low battery voltage.
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103(a)
`103(a)
`
`References
`Chu, Choi 2010
`Chu, Choi 2010, Myers
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`Id. at 1:21–26. The ’558 patent also discloses that the power amplifier
`apparatus may include: (1) in one embodiment, an envelope amplifier and a
`boost converter; (2) in a second embodiment a switcher, an envelope
`amplifier, and a power amplifier; or (3) in a third embodiment, a switcher
`that may sense an input current and generate a switching signal to charge
`and discharge an inductor providing a supply current. Id. at 1:31–34, 1:51–
`52, 1:66–2:2.
`Figure 3, below, shows an exemplary switcher and envelope
`amplifier. Ex. 1001, 4:39–42.
`
`Figure 3 shows switcher 160a and envelope amplifier 170a, which, in turn,
`includes operational amplifier (op-amp) 310 that receives the envelope
`signal. Id. at 4:41–63. Driver 312 has output (R1) coupled to the gate of P-
`channel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS) transistor 314 and a second
`output (R2) coupled N-channel MOS (NMOS) transistor 316. Id. PMOS
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`transistor 318 in envelope amplifier 170a is connected to receive C1 control
`signal via Vboost voltage from Boost Converter 180. Id. PMOS transistor
`320 in envelope amplifier 170 receives a C2 control signal and Vbat voltage.
`Id.
`
`Within switcher 160a, current sense amplifier 330 has its input
`coupled to current sensor 164 and its output coupled to an input of switcher
`driver 332. Ex. 1001, 4:64–66. Vbat voltage of switcher 160a provides
`current to power amplifier 130 via inductor 162 when the switcher is ON,
`and inductor 120 provides stored energy to power amplifier 130 during the
`OFF state of the switcher circuit. Id. at 5:14–30. In the ON state, the
`switcher is joined with the current from the envelope amplifier 170a (Ienv)
`to provide a combined current (Ipa) to PA 130. See id. at 3:21–27.
`The ’558 patent also discloses another embodiment for the switcher
`circuit of Figure 3—specifically a switcher that uses offset current to lower
`the Isen current from the current sensor, keeping the switcher in the ON state
`for a longer time and producing a larger Iind current provided to power
`amplifier 130. Id. at 1:5–48, Fig. 5.
`Claims 1, 6, 8, and 12 are independent. Claims 6, 7, 12, and 13 are
`illustrative and reproduced below (Ex. 1001, 11:42–11:67, 12:51–13:14).
`6. An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
`a power amplifier operative to receive and amplify an
`input radio frequency (RF) signal and provide an output RF
`signal; and
`a supply generator operative to receive an envelope signal
`and a first supply voltage, to generate a boosted supply voltage
`having a higher voltage than the first supply voltage, and to
`generate a second supply voltage for the power amplifier based
`on the envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage, wherein
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`the supply generator incorporates an operational amplifier (op-
`amp) operative to receive the envelope signal and provide an
`amplified signal, a driver operative to receive the amplified
`signal and provide a first control signal and a second control
`signal, a P-channel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS)
`transistor having a gate receiving a first control signal, a source
`receiving the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage,
`and a drain providing the second supply voltage, and an N-
`channel metal oxide semiconductor (NMOS) transistor having a
`gate receiving the second control signal, a drain providing the
`second supply voltage, and a source coupled to circuit ground.
`7.
`The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the supply generator is
`operative to generate the second supply voltage based on the
`envelope signal and either the boosted supply voltage or the first
`supply voltage.
`12. An apparatus comprising:
`a switcher operative to receive a first supply voltage and
`provide a first supply current;
`an envelope amplifier operative to receive an envelope
`signal and provide a second supply current based on the envelope
`signal; and
`a power amplifier operative to receive an envelope signal
`and provide a second supply current based on the envelope
`signal; and
`a power amplifier operative to receive a total supply
`current comprising the first supply current and the second supply
`current, wherein the switcher comprises
`a current sense amplifier operative to sense the first supply
`current, or the second supply current, or the total supply current
`and provide a sensed signal,
`a driver operative to receive the sensed signal and provide
`a first control signal and a second control signal,
`a P-channel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS) transistor
`having a gate receiving the first control signal, a source receiving
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`the first supply voltage, and a drain providing a switching signal
`for an inductor providing the first supply current, and
`an N-channel metal oxide semiconductor (NMOS)
`transistor having a gate receiving the second control signal, a
`drain providing the switching signal, and a source coupled to
`circuit ground.
`13. The apparatus of claim 12, further comprising:
`a boost converter operative to receive the first supply
`voltage and provide a boosted supply voltage having a higher
`voltage than the first supply voltage, wherein the envelope
`amplifier operates based on the first supply voltage or the
`boosted supply voltage.
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The parties do not materially dispute the level of ordinary skill in the
`art. See 1152 PO Resp. 9–10; 1152 Pet. 38–39. Petitioner argues a person
`of ordinary skill in the art related to the ’558 patent at the time of filing
`would have a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`engineering, or computer science and would also have at least two years of
`relevant experience or a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields and four
`years of relevant experience, where relevant experience “refers to experience
`with mobile device architecture as well as transmission and power circuitry
`for radio frequency devices.” 1152 Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1001, code (57),
`1:7–9, 1:30–31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–85).
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary
`skill in the art and we find the work experience is commensurate with the
`level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected in the prior art. See In re GPAC
`Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, as Petitioner has asserted,
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`we discern the prior art, as well as the ’558 patent, requires a degree of
`knowledge that is specific to mobile device architecture as well as
`transmission and power circuitry for radio frequency devices. See 1152 Pet.
`38–39; Ex. 1001, code (57), 1:7–9, 1:30–31.
`B. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review for a petition filed before November 13,
`2018, a claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017); 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); effective November 13, 2018). The Petition was
`accorded a filing date of June 28, 2018, and therefore, the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard for claim interpretation applies. See
`Paper 5 (Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition).
`In applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms generally
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In
`re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This
`presumption may be rebutted when a patentee, acting as a lexicographer, sets
`forth an alternate definition of a term in the specification with reasonable
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, only terms that are 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,
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`1. “current sense amplifier” (claim 12)
`Petitioner offers a claim construction for “current sense amplifier”
`(claim 12) to mean an “amplifier that produces a voltage from a current,”
`which is based on the ALJ’s construction in the parallel ITC proceeding.
`1152 Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1023, 11–12). Petitioner argues that the ITC
`construction is consistent with the ’558 patent specification and the
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. 1152 Pet. 37–38. Patent
`Owner argues that this term does not require construction, but does not
`contest Petitioner’s contention or our adoption of this construction in the
`Institution Decision. 1152 PO Resp. 9.
`Based on the full record and for the reasons given by the ALJ in the
`ITC proceeding (Ex. 1023, 11–12), we adopt the construction of “current
`sense amplifier” to mean an “amplifier that produces a voltage from a
`current.”
`
`2. “envelope signal” (claims 1, 6–8, and 12)
`Petitioner offers a claim construction for “envelope signal” (claim 12)
`to mean a “signal indicative of the upper bound of the output RF signal,”
`which is the ALJ’s construction in the ITC proceeding. 1152 Pet. 38; Ex.
`1023, 13–14. Patent Owner argues that this term does not require
`construction, but does not contest Petitioner’s contention or our adoption of
`this construction in the Institution Decision. 1152 PO Resp. 9.
`Based on the full record and for the reasons given by the ALJ (Ex.
`1023, 13–14), we adopt the ITC construction for “envelope signal” to mean
`a “signal indicative of the upper bound of the output RF signal.”
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`3. “a P-channel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS) transistor [having]
`. . . a source [receiving/that receives] the boosted supply voltage or the
`first supply voltage” (claims 6 and 8) and
`“wherein the envelope amplifier operates based on the first supply
`voltage or the boosted supply voltage” (claim 13)
`Claims 6 and 8 recite in pertinent part “a P-channel metal oxide
`semiconductor (PMOS) transistor [having] . . . a source [receiving/that
`receives] the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage.” Claim 13
`recites a similar limitation. At issue for claims 6, 8, and 13 is the
`interpretation of whether the PMOS transistor source or the envelope
`amplifier is required to receive (operate) on both the first supply voltage and
`the boosted supply voltage or whether one of these voltages would suffice to
`satisfy the limitation of claims 6, 8, and 13.
`Patent Owner argues that “[t]he only reasonable interpretation of this
`claim element, properly read within the context of the claim as a whole, is
`that the source of the PMOS transistor must be able to receive, selectively,
`either the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage (referred to
`herein as a ‘selective boost’).” 1153 PO Resp. 19 (emphasis added) (citing
`1153 Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 47–61); see 1152 PO Resp. 9 (stating same selective boost
`required for claim 13 between the first supply voltage and the boosted
`supply voltage) (citing 1152 Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 48–56).
`With respect to claim 6 in IPR2018-001153, Patent Owner argues that
`the text of claim 6 requires a supply generator that generates two supply
`voltages. 1153 PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:42–63). Thus, the
`claim 6 limitations directed to the transistor source receiving said supply
`voltages from the generator refers to selectively receiving the first supply
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`voltage or boosted supply voltage. Id. Thus, this selective boost is required
`for claim 6 and the related limitation in claim 8.
`Patent Owner asserts that to interpret it otherwise would render
`portions of the claims meaningless or superfluous and cannot be correct.
`1153 PO Resp. 20–21 (citing Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of
`Phoenix, Inc., 672 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Wasica Fin. GmbH v.
`Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1288 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Patent
`Owner argues that to adopt Petitioner’s construction and allow the transistor
`to receive either one of the voltages alone would render the other supply
`voltage an optional signal that need not be present throughout the claim.
`1153 PO Resp. 22.
`Claim 7, which depends from independent claim 6, recites “wherein
`the supply generator is operative to generate the second supply voltage based
`on the envelope signal and either the boosted supply voltage or the first
`supply voltage” (emphasis added). Relying on Petitioner’s concession that
`claim 7 requires a selective boost (see e.g., 1153 Pet. 80–81), Patent Owner
`argues that claim 6, which generates two voltages applied to the PMOS
`transistor source, indicates that the transistor source must be capable of
`receiving either one of two boosted voltages (selectively) as recited in claim
`7. 1153 PO Resp. 23. Thus, “despite [claim 6’s] inclusion of the
`conjunction ‘or,’ the ‘boosted supply voltage’ and the ‘first supply voltage’
`[of claim 6] are not alternative options—the claimed PMOS source must be
`capable of receiving both. No other interpretation makes sense in the
`context of [claims 6 and 8].” 1153 PO Resp. 24.
`
`Claim 13, which depends from claim 12, also requires the “selective
`boost” discussed above for claims 6 and 7, as it recites “wherein the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`envelope amplifier operates based on the first supply voltage or the boosted
`supply voltage.” (Ex. 1001, 1:42–50, 8:55–62). The limitation in claim 13
`mirrors the limitation in claim 6 and requires the amplifier (recited as a
`transistor in claim 6) to receive or operate on a first voltage or a boosted
`voltage. Patent Owner contends that read in context of the claims:
`The claim 13 limitation “a boost converter operative to receive
`the first supply voltage and provide a boosted supply voltage
`having a higher voltage than the first supply voltage” serves no
`purpose whatsoever [under Petitioner’s construction]. The only
`reasonable interpretation is that the envelope amplifier must be
`able to receive both voltage inputs, and selectively choose which
`one to use. That is, the envelope amplifier operates based on one
`or the other supply voltage, but it must receive both and
`selectively choose which one to use.
`1152 PO Resp. 24 (emphasis added).
`Patent Owner argues that the ’558 patent specification also supports
`this conclusion as it refers to an amplifier receiving “the boosted supply
`voltage or the first supply voltage” and “the first supply voltage or the
`boosted supply voltage,” but always does so in the context of an example
`employing a selective boost. Ex. 1001, 1:42–50, 8:55–62; see 1152 PO
`Resp. 20; 1153 PO Resp. 24–25. In the remaining instances where the first
`supply voltage or boosted supply voltages are referenced without an
`example of a selective boost (Ex. 1001, 8:62–9:17; 9:21–36; 10:19–29), the
`passages refer to Figures 3 or 5 of the ’558 patent, and both figures show an
`amplifier operating on either a first supply voltage or a boosted supply
`voltage. 1152 PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Figures 3 and 5); see 1153 PO Resp.
`26–27 (discussing same). Patent Owner’s annotated Figures 3 and 5 from
`the ’558 patent are provided below.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`1152 PO Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner’s annotated Figures 3 and 5 from the
`’558 patent both show Vbat (first supply voltage) and Vboost (boosted
`supply voltage) connected as inputs into the source of PMOS transistor 314.
`Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:31–49). Patent Owner avers that under
`Petitioner’s proposed construction, a system that was capable of receiving
`only Vbat would render the features and limitations directed to a boosted
`voltage meaningless. 1152 PO Resp. 27–28
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s reliance on the text of the claim
`recitation of “or” in claims 6, 8, and 13 as merely providing alternatives that
`would operate on only one voltage is mistaken because it is inconsistent with
`the language of the specification and would render aspects of claims 6, 8,
`and 13 meaningless. See 1152 PO Resp. 23–24 (citing Wasica Fin., 853
`F.3d at 1288 n.10; In re Gaubert, 524 F.2d 1222 (CCPA 1975)); 1153 PO
`Resp. 20, 29 (noting same). Patent Owner also contends that textual reading
`of the claim limitations for claims 6, 8, and 13 in a conjunctive manner that
`allows only one supply voltage to be present would be contrary to the
`disclosed embodiments and inconsistent with the claim language as a whole.
`1152 PO Resp. 25; 1153 PO Resp. 29.
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Apsel, Petitioner’s declarant,
`admitted that “based on” as recited in claim 6 requires that both of the
`claimed voltages must be available. 1152 PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2004,
`42:19–43:9); see 1153 PO Resp. 24 (citing same).
`
`Petitioner responds that the plain language of claims 6 and 13 recites
`an “envelope amplifier” that “operates based on the first supply voltage or
`the boosted supply voltage.” 1152 Pet. Reply 3 (emphasis added); Ex. 1001,
`13:13–15; 1153 Pet. Reply 3. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s declarant agrees
`that the conjunctive use of “or” identifies, in plain English, the recitation of
`two alternatives. 1152 Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1028, 130:10–18, 130:19–
`131:2); 1153 Pet. Reply 3–4. Petitioner relies heavily on the plain meaning
`of the claims, which recite the conjunctive “or” in reference to the source
`receiving the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage.
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence and argument. First,
`Petitioner’s reliance on the text of the claims fails to construe the claims in
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`light of the intrinsic record. See In re Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257.
`Petitioner does not address the ’558 patent specification and the repeated
`references in context that inform the dual supply voltages and their operation
`at the source of the amplifier. See Ex. 1001, 1:42–50, 8:55–62, 8:62–9:17,
`9:21–36, 10:19–29, Figs. 3 and 5; see 1152 PO Resp. 20; 1153 PO Resp.
`24–25. Although we agree that use of the conjunctive “or” in claims 6, 8,
`and 13 is an acceptable mechanism for claiming alternatives such that only
`one of the limitations need be found in the prior art (see In re Gaubert, 524
`F.2d 1222 (CCPA 1975)), claim limitations under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation must also be interpreted in light of the intrinsic record (see In
`re Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257). In the present case, the context of
`the claim limitations and ’558 patent specification inform the scope of the
`claims.
`Petitioner’s arguments assert both that Patent Owner improperly limits
`the construction to one disclosed embodiment (1152 Pet. Reply 7; 1153 Pet.
`Reply 7) and that the Patent Owner’s construction improperly excludes a
`disclosed embodiment (1153 Pet Reply 6–7; Ex. 1001, 8:24–26). We are not
`persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s construction should
`be rejected because it excludes an embodiment. 1152 Pet. Reply 7 (citing
`EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`2014); Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d
`1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., 257
`F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The cases Petitioner cites refer to
`constructions that read out preferred embodiments. See EPOS Techs., 766
`F.3d at 1347; Dow Chem. Co., 257 F.3d, at 1378; Anchor Wall Sys., 340
`F.3d at 1308. Petitioner provides no persuasive evidence that the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`embodiment they identify as being excluded is the preferred embodiment of
`the ’558 patent. Further, Petitioner cites no support that claims 6, 8 and 13
`must be construed to cover all embodiments. See Baran v. Med. Device
`Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 1152 PO Sur-reply 6.
`The Federal Circuit has stated that the broadest reasonable
`construction is not required to cover the most embodiments in a patent
`specification, but “must be reasonable in light of the claims and
`specification. The fact that one construction may cover more embodiments
`than another does not categorically render that construction reasonable.”
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747,
`755 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see 1152 PO Sur-reply 6 (citing same). We are not
`persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that exclusion of a single embodiment
`renders Patent Owner’s claim construction improper.
`We are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that in related
`proceedings before the United States District Court for the Southern District
`of California, the court issued a claim construction for a related term in
`claim 7 of the ’558 patent that construed “or” in similar manner as Petitioner
`proposes here. 1153 Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1026, 5–6); 1152 Pet. Reply
`4–6 (citing same). The district court was faced with assessing whether
`“based on” in claim 7 of the ’558 patent was indefinite or should be
`construed according to its plain meaning. Ex. 1026, 5. The court found that
`because dependent claim 7 acted to expand the scope of a dependent claim
`to include another possible combination not claimed in the claim from which
`it depended, the term “based on” in claim 7 was indefinite. Id. at 6. The
`court’s discussion of indefiniteness does not construe the term “or” as
`recited in claims 6, 8, or 13. We do not agree with Petitioner that the court
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`addressed the scope of claim 6 or even construed the word “or” in claim 6 by
`implication. Id. at 5–6; 1153 Pet. Reply 5–6. Petitioner’s reliance on the
`district court’s discussion is unpersuasive here.
`Turning to the claims, Petitioner agrees that dependent claim 7 recites
`a selective boost requirement, but notes that similar language is missing
`from claims 6, 8, and 13, which use the conjunctive “or” without additional
`terms and indicate that a skilled artisan need only use one of either a boosted
`or first supply voltage. 1153 Pet. Reply 5–6; 1152 Pet. Reply 5–6.
`Petitioner contends that if claim 6 included a selective boost, claim 7, which
`adds limitations that “the supply generator is operative to generate the
`second supply voltage based on the envelope signal and either the boosted
`supply voltage or the first supply voltage,” would add nothing. Id. We
`disagree. Claim 7 modifies the “second supply voltage” from the supply
`generator of claim 6 and introduces two alternate options for the second
`supply voltage. See 1153 PO Sur-reply 4. Claim 7 does not alter the first
`supply voltage recited in claim 6, which along with the boosted voltage
`make up the two voltages that are available for the source of the PMOS
`transistor. See 1153 PO Resp. 23–24, see also 1152 PO Resp. 21–22 (citing
`Figures 3 and 5); 1153 PO Resp. 26–27 (discussing same).
`Finally, we are not persuaded by the extrinsic cross-examination
`testimony. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner cites compelling testimony
`regarding the interpretation of claims 6, 8, and 13. See 1153 Pet. Reply 4–5
`(citing Ex. 1028, 147:10–151), 7 (citing Ex. 1028, 134:12-18), 8–9; 1153 PO
`Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2006, 42:19–43:9); 1153 PO Sur-reply 7–8. The cross-
`examination testimony cited by both parties does not place the terms in
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152
`IPR2018-01153
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`context of the specification or claims and, on this record, is not persuasive or
`determinative regarding the interpretation of claim 6, 8, and 10.
`The broadest reasonable interpretation is what would be understood
`by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1257. Applicable here is that the ’558 specification
`and the context of claims 6, 8, and 13 and their related claims support that
`the amplifier (PMOS transistor) must be able to receive both the boosted
`supply voltage and the first supply voltage as recited in the claims.
`Ex. 1001, 1:42–50, 8:55–62, 8:62–9:17, 9:21–36, 10:19–29, Figs. 3 and 5;
`see 1152 PO Resp. 20; 1153 PO Resp. 24–25. Most importantly, Petitioner
`acknowledges that dependent claim 7 requires a selective boost by adding
`limitations to the supply generator of claim 6. 1153 Pet. Reply 5–6 (noting
`that claim 7 adds the “second supply voltage based on the envelope signal
`and either the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage” (emphasis
`added) to claim 6 creating a selective boost). Yet, Petitioner contends
`inconsistently that the PMOS source of claim 6 (that receives the supply
`generator of claim 7) need onl
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
