throbber
IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`2. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`PO’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong ................................................. 2 
`1. 
`PO’s Proposed Construction Contradicts The Plain Claim
`Language ..................................................................................... 3 
`PO’s Proposed Construction Would Exclude Disclosed
`Embodiments .............................................................................. 6 
`PO’s Remaining Arguments Have No Merit .............................. 8 
`3. 
`III.  Grounds ............................................................................................................ 9 
`A. 
`Claim 15 is anticipated by Kwak .......................................................... 9 
`1. 
`Kwak’s feedforward path increases the inductor current ........... 9 
`(a)  Diagrams in Dr. Kelley’s Declaration Do Not Depict Kwak ............. 11 
`(b)  PO Misinterprets Kwak’s Figure ........................................................ 12 
`(c)  PO’s Argument That Kwak’s Feedforward Path Affects Only The
`Phase Of The Inductor Current Is Wrong .................................................... 18 
`B. 
`Petitioner Has Not Improperly Combined Two Different Kwak
`Embodiments ....................................................................................... 20 
`1. 
`Figure 5 Alone Anticipates Claim 15 ....................................... 20 
`2. 
`Figure 6 Shows A Detailed Implementation of a Figure 5 ....... 23 
`Claim 16 Is Unpatentable .................................................................... 24 
`PO Is Wrong That Petition Fails To Demonstrate a Motivation
`to Combine Kwak with Choi 2010 ...................................................... 25 
`1. 
`PO Misrepresents Petitioner’s Argument ................................. 25 
`
`
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”) confirms that the challenged claims of
`
`the ʼ558 patent are invalid. Indeed, the POR’s challenge of Petitioner’s mapping
`
`of the limitations to the cited references is based on arguments that Patent Owner’s
`
`(“PO”) own expert, Dr. Arthur Kelley, contradicted during cross-examination and
`
`on an improper claim construction.
`
`First, PO’s arguments that Kwak’s feedforward path does not increase the
`
`inductor current is based on diagrams that, as Dr. Kelley admitted in deposition, do
`
`not depict Kwak, on a misinterpretation of Kwak’s Figure 11, and on an erroneous
`
`assumption that Kwak’s feedforward path affects only the inductor current phase.
`
`Second, PO seeks to re-write the claim elements in the guise of claim
`
`construction. But its proffered construction contradicts the surrounding claim
`
`language, would exclude disclosed embodiments, and is inconsistent with the
`
`specification––as Dr. Kelley admitted in deposition. See Ex. 1229 [Kelley
`
`Transcript], 35:15-36:1; 37:5-16; 37:20-38:11; 133:4-135:9; see also EPOS Techs.
`
`Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (rejecting
`
`construction “because it reads out preferred embodiments”); see also Dow Chem.
`
`Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., 257 F.3d 1364, 1378 (“a claim construction that
`
`excludes a preferred embodiment is ‘rarely, if ever, correct.’”).
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Third, PO’s critique that modifying Kwak to add Choi 2010’s boost
`
`converter “would not be possible without undue experimentation” (POR, 42) is
`
`wrong. PO does not dispute the benefits identified by Petitioner with regard to the
`
`motivation to combine Kwak and Choi 2010 (Petition, 63-67). See, POR, 41-43.
`
`Instead, PO argues that each of Kwak and Choi 2010 includes controllers that the
`
`other disparages. This is irrelevant, however. As Dr. Kelley admitted, adding a
`
`boost converter in a modulator powered by a battery supply was within the skill of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”). Ex. 1229, 152:21-153:4; 283:16-
`
`284:1.
`
`For these reasons, as set forth more fully below, PO’s arguments should be
`
`rejected and the challenged claims found unpatentable.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`PO’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong
`PO contends that the term “the envelope amplifier operates based on the first
`
`supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage” should be construed such that “the
`
`envelope amplifier must be able to operate, selectively, based on either the first
`
`supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage (referred to herein as a ‘selective
`
`boost’).” (POR, 11, 35.) According to Patent Owner, an amplifier that received
`
`only the first voltage or only the boosted voltage would not meet this limitation.
`
`This proposed construction is far from the broadest reasonable construction of
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`“or,” is contrary to the plain meaning, and excludes disclosed embodiments. It
`
`should be rejected.
`
`1. PO’s Proposed Construction Contradicts The Plain Claim
`Language
`Claim 19 recites an “envelope amplifier” that “operates based on the first
`
`supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage.” Ex. 1201, 14:25-27. As Dr. Kelley
`
`conceded, the term “or” is a conjunction that identifies two alternatives: this “or”
`
`that. (Ex. 1229, 130:10-18 (“Q. I’m asking at the Schoolhouse Rock level, or is a
`
`conjunction that joins two alternatives, correct? A. Well, if we’re going to import
`
`Schoolhouse Rock into the deposition, in that context, yes, it is.”).) Under its plain
`
`meaning, the requirement for an amplifier that operates based on “the first supply
`
`voltage or the boosted supply voltage” is met by an amplifier that operates based
`
`on either alternative alone. (Id. at 130:19-131:2 (“Q.…If I said I would like coffee
`
`or tea, you could give me tea and that would meet my requirement, right? A. In
`
`that hypothetical abstract outside the bounds of the ’558, sure.”). PO has identified
`
`no sound basis to deviate from that broad plain meaning. Ex. 1228, ¶5.
`
`To the contrary, PO concedes that the common meaning of “or” in patent
`
`claims is to recite alternatives. See, POR, 39 (“The use of ‘or’ is sometimes an
`
`acceptable mechanism for claiming alternatives such that only one of the
`
`limitations need be found in the prior art to support anticipation.”) And that is
`
`exactly how Hon. Dana M. Sabraw construed “or” in the related district court
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`litigation on the ’558 patent. (Ex. 1227 [Claim Constr. Order] at 5-6 (holding the
`
`limitation “a source receiving the boosted supply voltage or the first supply
`
`voltage” in claim 6 does not require “selective boost”).) Indeed, Dr. Kelley
`
`admitted PO’s proffered construction contradicts Judge Sabraw:
`
`Q. And just to be clear, you’re giving an opinion that is contrary to
`Judge Sabraw’s claim construction, right?
`I understand what the Judge did. And I’ve reached a different
`conclusion.
`
`A.
`
`Ex. 1229, 147:10-151. But if “or” covers either alternative alone under the Phillips
`
`standard that Judge Sabraw used, it is certainly at least that broad under the
`
`broadest reasonable construction rule applicable here. Facebook, Inc. v.
`
`Pragmatus AV, LLC, 582 Fed. Appx. 864, 869 (“The broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of a claim term may be the same as or broader than the construction
`
`of a term under the Phillips standard. But it cannot be narrower.”) An envelope
`
`amplifier that operates based on either one of the recited alternatives – e.g., the
`
`“boosted supply voltage” alone – would thus meet the claim.
`
`Moreover, other claims demonstrate that PO knew how to recite “selective
`
`boost” when it wanted – using language different from claim 19. Independent
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Objections omitted in transcript quotations.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`claim 6 and dependent claim 7 provide one such example. Much like claim 19,
`
`claim 6 recites “a source receiving the boosted supply voltage or the first supply
`
`voltage….” Claims 6 is therefore met using only one of the boosted or first supply
`
`voltage. Indeed, as noted above, Judge Sabraw found that this claim does not
`
`require “selective boost.” (Ex. 1227, 5-6.) By contrast, dependent claim 7 adds
`
`the limitation “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.” If claim 6 already required “selective boost,” then
`
`claim 7 would add nothing. But consistent with claim differentiation doctrine,
`
`claim 7’s additional language “and either” has meaning. For that reason, claim 7
`
`could not be read to require only one of the boosted or first supply voltage. It is
`
`therefore that additional language appearing in claim 7 (which does not appear in
`
`either claim 6 or 19) that adds a requirement for the amplifier to be able to select
`
`between “either” the boosted voltage “or” the first supply voltage. Because claim
`
`19 (like claim 6) lacks this “and either” language, it has no such requirement.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“a dependent claim
`
`that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation…is
`
`not present in the independent claim.”)
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`2. PO’s Proposed Construction Would Exclude Disclosed
`Embodiments
`PO’s construction should also be rejected, because it improperly excludes
`
`disclosed embodiments. EPOS, 766 F.3d at 1347; Dow, 257 F.3d, at 1378.
`
`Specifically, the ’558 specification (starting at 8:24) teaches “another design
`
`of supporting operation with a lower battery voltage[.]” (Ex. 1201, 8:24-25.) In
`
`this embodiment, “the entire envelope tracker is operated based on the Vboost
`
`voltage from boost converter 180” alone (i.e., solely based on “boosted supply
`
`voltage”), without ever operating based on battery voltage (i.e., never based on
`
`“first supply voltage”). (Id., 8:25-26.) As Dr. Kelley admitted in deposition when
`
`asked about claim 13, which recites language similar to claim 19, PO’s
`
`construction would exclude this embodiment:
`
`Q.
`
`If you’re right that the selective boost and the or means I have
`
`to be able to use either boost or first, then under that
`
`circumstance, claim [6] and 13 would not cover the
`
`embodiment at column 8, line 24 that uses Vboost alone. Is
`
`that fair?
`
`A.
`
`I think that’s fair.
`
`(Ex. 1229, 134:12-18.) Because PO’s proposed construction would exclude
`
`this disclosed embodiment, it should be rejected. EPOS, 766 F.3d, 1347;
`
`Dow, 257 F.3d, 1378.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`PO’s argument is also an improper attempt to limit claim 19 solely to one
`
`disclosed embodiment (to the exclusion of others). For example, PO contends that
`
`column 1, lines 42-50 discloses a form of “selective boost.” Whether the
`
`specification here means what PO says is debatable. But what is beyond dispute is
`
`that column 1 discloses merely “one design” as an “example” that in no way limits
`
`the claims:
`
`In one design, the envelope amplifier may further receive the first
`supply voltage and may generate the second supply voltage based on
`either the first supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage. For
`example, the envelope amplifier may generate the second supply
`voltage (i) based on the boosted supply voltage if the envelope signal
`exceeds a first threshold and/or if the first supply voltage is below a
`second threshold or (ii) based on the first supply voltage otherwise.
`
`(Ex. 1201, 1:42-50. (emphasis added).) PO’s citation to 8:55-62 is similarly
`
`misplaced. (Id., 8:55-62 (“In one design….For example,…”).) As the Federal
`
`Circuit has admonished, confining claims to one disclosed embodiment is the
`
`“cardinal sin” of claim construction. Phillips, 415 F.3d, 1320 (“although the
`
`specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have
`
`repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”); see also
`
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(“a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`into a claim”); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003) (cautioning against “importing limitations”). PO’s blatant attempt to do so
`
`here should be rejected.
`
`3. PO’s Remaining Arguments Have No Merit
`Finally, PO suggests that Dr. Alyssa Apsel somehow “agreed that it would
`
`not make sense to interpret the boosted supply voltage as purely optional in the
`
`context of the claims” (POR, 40), because “when asked about a similar ‘based on’
`
`limitation in claim 6,” she supposedly “admitted that it makes sense to interpret
`
`‘based on’ as requiring a boosted supply voltage to be an available supply
`
`voltage.” Id.
`
`The language from claim 6 that Dr. Apsel addressed in this testimony recites
`
`“generat[ing] a second supply voltage for the power amplifier based on the
`
`envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage.” (Ex. 2003 [Apsel Transcript],
`
`41:21-23; Ex. 1201, 11:49-51.) This is not similar to claim 19, which plainly
`
`recites “or” not “and.”2 (Ex. 1201, claim 19.) By reciting “or,” claim 19 is clear
`
`
`
` 2
`
` It is also different from the relevant part of claim 6 that Judge Sabraw
`
`interpreted, which appears at 11:58-59 . (Ex. 1201, 11:41-63.)
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`that either one of the “boosted supply voltage” or “the first supply voltage” is
`
`alone sufficient to meet the claim’s requirement. Ex. 1228, ¶12.
`
`PO’s proposed construction should thus be rejected.
`
`III. GROUNDS
`A. Claim 15 is anticipated by Kwak
`As the petition showed, claim 15 is anticipated by Kwak. Petition, 38-51.
`
`PO raises only two arguments for why claim 15 is allegedly not anticipated.
`
`First, PO argues that Kwak’s feedforward path does not increase the inductor
`
`current. POR, 24-33. Second, PO argues that Petitioner improperly combines two
`
`different embodiments of Kwak. POR, 17-24. As explained below, both
`
`arguments are incorrect.
`
`1. Kwak’s feedforward path increases the inductor current
`Kwak discloses switching amplifiers in Figures 3(a) and 5. Kwak’s Figure 5
`
`modifies Figure 3(a) by adding a feedforward path. Ex. 1211, 2668-2669. In both
`
`Figures 3(a) and 5, the output current (io) equals the sum of the linear amplifier
`
`current (ia) and the inductor current (id), i.e., io= ia+id. Ex. 1211, 2668. PO
`
`concedes that use of the feedforward path does not change the output current, io.
`
`POR, 27. PO also concedes that it was known in the art that switchers are more
`
`efficient than linear amplifiers, and that it was therefore known to be desirable to
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`maximize the inductor current and reduce the linear amplifier current. Ex. 1229,
`
`185:19-186:10; Ex. 1228, ¶16.
`
`Kwak explains that, in theory “the linear amplifier only delivers the
`
`switching ripple current of the switching amplifier because the switching amplifier
`
`supplies most of the output current through the relation of io=ia+id =(1+β)‧ia.” Ex.
`
`1211, 2666. But as Kwak recognizes, “[i]n reality, however, [] the output current
`
`of the switching amplifier (id) is slower and less than the output current (io) because
`
`of the finite loop gain β. Thus, the linear amplifier must provide some amount of
`
`signal current in addition to the ripple current to compensate for the distortion that
`
`results from the phase lag of the switching stage in the high-frequency region.” Id.
`
`Kwak thus states that the linear amplifier does not merely provide ripple
`
`cancelation current–it also provides “some amount of the signal current.” Ex.
`
`1228, ¶17.
`
`The purpose of Kwak’s feedforward path (Figure 5) is reducing the signal
`
`current from the linear amplifier. See, Ex. 1211, 2668 (“Hence, an auxiliary circuit
`
`[feedforward path] is necessary to alleviate the burden of the linear amplifier.”)
`
`Use of the feedforward path reduces the burden on the linear amplifier (i.e.,
`
`decreases ia) . According to Kwak’s equation (io=ia+id), the only way that total
`
`current (io) can remain constant when linear amplifier current (ia) is decreased is if
`
`the inductor current (id) increases. Indeed, that is the point of Kwak’s feedforward
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`path––to reduce the burden on the linear amplifier (i.e., reduce ia) by increasing the
`
`inductor current (i.e., increase id). Ex. 1228, ¶18.
`
`PO cannot escape from this clear interpretation of Kwak. Consequently, PO
`
`relies on misleading diagrams in its expert declarations, flawed visual inspection of
`
`Kwak’s Figure 11, and mischaracterization of Kwak’s equation 4. Ex. 1228, ¶19.
`
`(a) Diagrams in Dr. Kelley’s Declaration Do Not Depict
`Kwak
`In his declaration, Dr. Kelley presents several graphs to support his
`
`argument that decreasing the linear amplifier current (ia) does not increase the
`
`inductor current (id). Ex. 2002, ¶¶77-80; POR, 28-29. At his deposition, however,
`
`Dr. Kelley conceded that those graphs do not represent Kwak and instead merely
`
`represent mathematical addition of sine waves. Ex. 1228, ¶20.
`
`Q. So the assumption that the amplitude, the peak to peak
`amplitude of Id equals Io, Kwak at Page 2673 bottom of the left
`column says that it is not correct, right?
`A
`Again, my waveforms are an illustration of how to do
`math with sine waves. They are not meant to directly reproduce
`Figure 11 of Kwak.”
`
`Ex. 1229, 232:19-233:5. Ex. 1228, ¶20.
`
`Because Dr. Kelley admits that his graphs do not represent Kwak, this
`
`argument from PO is entitled to no weight.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`(b) PO Misinterprets Kwak’s Figure
`PO argues that “a comparison between Figures 11(a) and 11(b) reveals that
`
`the feedforward path causes a phase shift in supply current (id) [], but no increased
`
`magnitude [].” POR, 25. Specifically, PO argues that even though the addition of
`
`the feedforward path in Figure 11(b) results in a decrease in the linear amplifier
`
`current, Figure 11(b) does not show any increase in the inductor current. See, id.,
`
`32. PO is wrong. In particular, this argument is based solely on a visual inspection
`
`of Figures 11(a) and (b). But those figures are not properly scaled to show changes
`
`in the inductor current, as Dr. Kelley conceded. Ex. 1229, 204:1-205:3. Ex. 1228,
`
`¶22.
`
`First, Kwak’s Figure 11 uses different scales to represent the linear
`
`amplifier current, ia, and the inductor current, id. That is, Figure 11 uses a step-size
`
`of 200mA for the linear amplifier current, ia, but uses a step-size of 500mA for the
`
`switcher current, id. These scales are highlighted in Kwak’s Figure 11. Ex. 1228,
`
`¶23.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`Ex. 2011, Fig. 11
`
`
`
`Therefore, in Figure 11, a change of one division for the inductor current, id
`
`(i.e., a change from one dashed horizontal line to the next) represents a change that
`
`is 250% greater than a change of one division for the linear amplifier current, ia.
`
`Because of these different step sizes, it is much easier to see small changes in the
`
`linear amplifier current, ia, than it is to see the same small change in the inductor
`
`current, id. Dr. Kelley admitted this. “Certainly at this particular resolution you
`
`wouldn’t see a 1 percent change.” Ex. 1229, 205:1-3. See also, id., 204:1-205:3.
`
`Ex. 1228, ¶24.
`
`Second, any decrease in the linear amplifier current, ia, caused by Kwak’s
`
`feedforward path is balanced by an identical increase in the inductor current, id.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`This is so because, as PO concedes, use of the feedforward path does not change
`
`the output current, io. POR, 27. Therefore, because io=ia+id, and because io
`
`remains unchanged, if ia decreases, id must increase by the identical amount.
`
`Because Figure 11 uses different scales, the decrease in linear amplifier current, ia,
`
`is more visible than the identical increase in inductor current, id. But Kwak’s
`
`equation confirms that inductor current id must increase. Ex. 1228, ¶25.
`
`Third, a POSA would have understood that Kwak’s inductor current, id, was
`
`much larger than the linear amplifier current, ia, and indeed this is what Figure 11
`
`shows. This is so because, as PO concedes, switchers are more efficient than linear
`
`amplifiers and it was well-known to maximize contribution of the switcher. For
`
`example, the inductor may provide 80% or more of the total current, where the
`
`linear amplifier may provide only 20% or less. Therefore, any decrease in the
`
`linear amplifier current, ia, caused by Kwak’s feedforward path will be much easier
`
`visible in Figure 11 than the corresponding increase in the switcher current, id. For
`
`example, sticking with the 80-20% example, suppose the switcher current, id, is
`
`80mA and the linear amplifier current, ia, is 20mA without the feedforward path.
`
`Suppose further that activating Kwak’s feedforward path decreases the linear
`
`amplifier by 2mA. That would be a 10% reduction in linear amplifier current, ia.
`
`However, the corresponding 2mA increase in switcher current, id, would be a 2.5%
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`increase, which would be harder to perceive than the 10% decrease in ia. Ex. 1228,
`
`¶26.
`
`Notwithstanding these differences in the scales, close examination of Figure
`
`11 leads to the opposite of PO’s conclusion. PO provides an annotated Figure 11
`
`(reproduced below) and argues that “[a]s can be seen by comparing the vertical red
`
`lines to the vertical blue lines, the phase lag of (id) is noticeably reduced in Figure
`
`11(b) with the feedforward path compared to the phase lag in Figure 11(a) without
`
`the feedforward path. Meanwhile, the magnitude of supply current (id) remains the
`
`same in both Figures 11(a) and 11(b), as denoted by the horizontal blue lines.”
`
`POR, 31 (internal citations omitted.) Ex. 1228, ¶27.
`
`
`
`POR, 32 (Fig. 11 annotated by PO)
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`PO misrepresents Kwak. PO argues that because the maximum value of
`
`inductor current id (indicated by the blue horizontal line) is the same in both
`
`figures, the magnitude of the inductor current remains the same. However, as
`
`explained below, while the magnitude of the highest peaks in the inductor current,
`
`id, are the same in Figures 11(a) and (b), the valleys, or lowest peaks, of id are not.
`
`Because the valley of id is lower in Figure 11(b) than it is in Figure 11(a), and
`
`because the highest peaks are the same, the peak-to-peak magnitude of the inductor
`
`current, id, is larger in Figure 11(b) than in Figure 11(a). Ex. 1228, ¶28.
`
`As Kwak explains, the magnitude of the AC component of the current is
`
`measured by its peak-to-peak value. Ex. 2011, 2673 (“Without the feedforward
`
`path, as shown in Fig. 11(a), the output current of the linear amplifier is
`
`approximately 120mAPP. In contrast, as shown in Fig. 11(b), this value is reduced
`
`to about half when the feedforward path is used.”) The “PP” subscript in Kwak
`
`corresponds to “peak-to-peak.” PO admits “that the magnitude and phase of output
`
`(Vo) remain constant with and without the feedforward path.” Accordingly, the
`
`minimum value of signal Vo is at the same point in both figures, as Dr. Kelley
`
`testified: “Q. But the minimum values of Vo are the same in 11(a) and 11(b), right?
`
`A. I understand that they’re the same.” Ex. 1229, 207:9-13. Ex. 1228, ¶29.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`This is illustrated in the excerpted detail from PO’s illustration below, in
`
`which the orange lines identify the valleys of the output voltage, Vo, and the green
`
`lines identify the valleys of the inductor current, id. Ex. 1228, ¶30.
`
`POR, 32 (Fig. 11, excerpted and annotated)
`
`
`
`According to PO and Dr. Kelley, the orange horizontal lines are at the same
`
`points in Figures 11(a) and 11(b) (The figures are not perfectly aligned in the page.
`
`Fig. 11(b) is slightly higher). POR, 31; Ex. 2002, ¶87. In the illustration above,
`
`the distance between the orange and green lines is smaller in Figure 11(b) than in
`
`Figure 11(a). That is, the distance between the valleys of the output voltage, Vo,
`
`and the inductor current, id, is bigger in Figure 11(a) than Figure 11(b). Indeed, Dr.
`
`Kelley admitted that the inductor current id valley (green) is closer to the Vo valley
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`(orange) in Figure 11(b) than it is in 11(a), thereby conceding that the peak-to-peak
`
`distance in Figure 11(b) has increased:
`
`Q. …Is it true, yes or no, that the vertical distance between
`the lowest point of Vo and the lowest point of Id in (a) is greater than
`the vertical distance between the lowest point of Vo and the lowest
`point of Id in (b)?
`A. Yes. That’s what produces the current Ia.
`
`Ex. 1229, 217:12-19.3 This confirms that the peak-to-peak value of current id has
`
`increased in Fig. 11(b), because the valley, or lowest peak, of id (green line) has
`
`decreased, while the highest peak remained the same. Ex. 1228, ¶31.
`
`Accordingly, even PO’s illustration confirms that Kwak’s feedforward path
`
`increases the inductor current. Ex. 1228, ¶32.
`
`(c)
`
`PO’s Argument That Kwak’s Feedforward Path
`Affects Only The Phase Of The Inductor Current Is
`Wrong
`PO argues that Kwak’s feedforward path changes the phase of the inductor
`
`current, but not its magnitude. POR, 29. As explained below, PO is mistaken.
`
`
`
` 3
`
` In redirect, when asked about the peak-to-peak magnitude of inductor current id,
`
`Dr. Kelley contradicted himself by arguing there is no change in the peak-to-peak
`
`magnitude.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`In Kwak’s Figures 3(a) and 5, the output current, io, equals the sum of the
`
`linear amplifier current, ia, and the inductor current, id. Ex. 1211, 2668-2669.
`
`Kwak’s equation 4 shows this and further shows that the inductor current, id, has
`
`two components: (1) the sensed current from current sensor AS, “ASꞏiaꞏC,” and (2)
`
`the offset current, “AFꞏvinꞏC,” from the feedforward path AF, where “C=AIꞏAM
`
`ꞏ(1/(ZL+sL)).” Id., 2669. Therefore, the output current depends on the linear
`
`amplifier current (ia), the sensed current (ASꞏia), and the offset current (AFꞏvin). Ex.
`
`1228, ¶34.
`
`As PO concedes, use of the feedforward path does not change the output
`
`current, io. POR, 27. As Kwak states explicitly, use of the feedforward path
`
`decreases the linear amplifier current, ia. Ex. 1211, 2668-69. Decreasing the linear
`
`amplifier current, ia, decreases the first component of the inductor current: ASꞏiaꞏC.
`
`Therefore, maintaining the same output current requires increasing the second
`
`component of the inductor current: AFꞏvinꞏC. The increase in this component
`
`offsets the decrease in the linear amplifier current, ia. Said more simply, because
`
`io=ia+id, and because io remains constant, any decrease in ia must be offset by an
`
`increase in id. Ex. 1228, ¶35.
`
`In his analysis, Dr. Kelley, assumed that the magnitude of the inductor
`
`current, id, remains constant. Ex. 2002, ¶77. But by doing so he assumed the
`
`conclusion he was trying to prove. Ex. 1228, ¶36.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`In any case, Dr. Kelley repeatedly admitted that neither Kwak nor a POSA
`
`would require inductor current to remain constant. See Ex. 1229, 252:3-4 (“A. The
`
`switcher is trying to provide most of the current Io by way of Id.”); see also id.,
`
`184:11-185:4; 185:19-186:10; 195:9-15; 196:7-18. For example, Dr. Kelley
`
`testified that a POSA would try to increase the inductor current to the extent
`
`possible:
`
`Q. And a person of ordinary skill would understand that it
`would be desirable from an efficiency standpoint to have the switcher
`produce as much energy as possible, right?
`A.
`I think it would be better phrased the switcher provides
`as much current as possible.
`
`Ex. 1229, 245:15-21. Ex. 1228, ¶¶37-40.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Improperly Combined Two Different Kwak
`Embodiments
`PO alleges that “Petitioner relies on the hybrid switching amplifier shown in
`
`Figure 5 of Kwak as allegedly disclosing the bulk of this claim element, but then
`
`relies on Kwak’s Figure 6 for the claim requirement of ‘the switcher adding an
`
`offset to the input current.’” POR, 17.
`
`1. Figure 5 Alone Anticipates Claim 15
`In its attempt to create (non-existent) distance between Kwak and claim 15,
`
`PO misrepresents Petitioner’s arguments. Specifically, PO is wrong that Petitioner
`
`relies on Figure 6 for “the switcher adding an offset to the input current” limitation.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Petitioner presented arguments that independently show how Kwak’s Figure 5 and
`
`the relevant disclosure teach this limitation. Ex. 1228, ¶42.
`
`For example, the Petition states “[a]s shown in Figure 5 [] Kwak discloses
`
`the internal structure of the supply generator, including the miscellaneous claim
`
`elements that the Examiner found were missing from the prior art during
`
`prosecution (operational amplifier, driver, and PMOS and NMOS transistors).”
`
`Petition, 31; Ex. 1228, ¶43.
`
`In the grounds section (pp. 42-49), the Petition provides an annotated Figure
`
`5 (p. 42) and, referring to the “switcher” limitation, states: “Kwak discloses this
`
`limitation. Kwak discloses a switcher (highlighted in yellow):”
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Ex. 1211 at 2668 (“Fig. 5. Hybrid switching amplifier with the feedforward path.”)
`
`Petition, 42; Ex. 1228, ¶44.
`
`The Petition then continues: “The switcher adds an offset to the input
`
`current, which will ultimately generate a larger supply current via the inductor
`
`than without the offset,” (Petition, 43) and points explicitly to the feed forward
`
`path of Fig. 5. See, Id.:
`
`Kwak discloses that the driver AF (highlighted in orange) supplies
`an increase in current—i.e., an offset current—in a “feed forward”
`path. Ex. 1211 at 2668 (“If we add a feedforward path, like the one
`shown in Fig. 5, the input signal can directly control the switching
`amplifier. Such a path is faster than the feedback current path formed
`by sensing the output current of the linear amplifier.”); id. at 2668-69
`(“the gain of the feedforward path AF(s)”).
`
`The Petition then explains where in Fig. 5, Kwak’s switcher adds the offset
`
`to the input current. See, Petition, 43:
`
`The offset current is added to the sensed signal by the summing
`circuit (Σ, outlined in brown), and the summing circuit’s output is
`sent to an integrator AI(s) (the left) triangle outlined in red, labeled
`with the integral sign ∫).
`
`The Petition also explains that “Figure 5 shows how the added offset
`
`current increases the supply current provided via the inductor.” Petition, 45.
`
`Therefore, the Petition explains that Figure 5 of Kwak alone anticipates
`
`claim 15. Because PO is simply wrong that Petitioner relies on Kwak’s Figure 6
`
`for this claim requirement, its argument should be rejected. Ex. 1228, ¶48.
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`2. Figure 6 Shows A Detailed Implementation of a Figure 5
`In any case, PO is also wrong that “Kwak [] describes Figures 5 and 6 as
`
`different embodiments.” POR, 17. PO argues that “Figure 6 illustrates a hybrid
`
`switching amplifier that employs a third-order ripple filter and current feedback not
`
`included in Figure 5, and replaces the summer and integrator of Figure 5 with a
`
`combined ‘summing circuit and integrator’ that has three inputs instead of two and
`
`operates in a different manner.” Ex. 1228, ¶49.

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