Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 30
`
`
`
` Entered: February 20, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 30
`
`
`
` Entered: February 20, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`In this inter partes review, Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) challenges
`claims 10 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558 B2 (“the ’558 patent,”
`Ex. 1301) which is assigned to Qualcomm Incorporated (“Patent Owner”).
`Paper 3 (“Petition” or “Pet.”).
`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 not demonstrated
`the unpatentability of claims 10 and 11.
`
`A. Procedural History
`Petitioner filed a Petition challenging claims 10 and 11 of the ’558
`patent (Pet. 6, 50–51), Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8).
`We instituted trial on all grounds of unpatentability. Paper 9 (“Dec. on
`Inst.”), 23–24. During trial, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 16, “PO
`Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 19, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner
`filed a Sur-reply (Paper 22, “PO Sur-reply”). A combined oral hearing for
`this inter partes review and IPR2019-01154 was held on October 28, 2019, a
`transcript of which appears in the record in each case. Paper 27.
`
`B. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 10 and 11 of the ’558
`patent in on the following grounds:
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`Claim(s) Challenged
`10
`
`11
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a)0F1
`
`103(a)
`
`References
`
`2 Choi 2010,2F3 and
`Chu,1F
`
`Hanington3F4
`Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington
`and Myers4F
`5
`
`Dec. on Inst. 6, 20–22; see Pet. 6, 50–51.
`In support of these grounds, Petitioner relies on the Declaration of
`Dr. Alyssa Apsel (Ex. 1303), the Reply Declaration of Dr. Alyssa B. Apsel
`(Ex. 1329), and the Deposition of Dr. Arthur Kelley (Ex. 1330) in support
`the Petition. Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Arthur Kelley
`(Ex. 2002) and Depositions of Dr. Alyssa Apsel (Ex. 2003; Ex. 2004).
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`Apple Inc. is identified as an additional real party-in-interest. 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
`
`
`1 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.
`2 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. 1304, “Chu”).
`3 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. 1307, “Choi 2010”).
`4 Gary Hanington, et al., High-Efficiency Power Amplifier Using Dynamic
`Power-Supply Voltage for CDMA Applications, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
`MICROWAVE THEORY AND TECHNIQUES 47:8 (1999) (Ex. 1325,
`“Hanington”)
`5 Myers, et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,929,702 (Ex. 1312, “Myers”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`Trade Commission (“ITC”) captioned In the Matter of Certain Mobile
`Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing Components
`Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1065. Pet. 2; Paper 5, 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. 1301, 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.
`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. 1301, 4:39–42.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`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 to N-channel MOS (NMOS) transistor 316. Id. PMOS
`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. 1301, 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)
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`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 10 is independent and claim 11 is dependent. Claims 10 and
`11 are reproduced below (Ex. 1301, 12:25–50).
`10. An apparatus for generating supply voltages, comprising:
`means for generating a boosted supply voltage based on a
`first supply voltage, the boosted supply voltage having a higher
`voltage than the first supply voltage; and
`means for generating a second supply voltage based on the
`envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage, wherein the
`means for generating the second supply voltage incorporates an
`envelope amplifier that produces the second supply voltage using
`an operational amplifier (op-amp) that receives the envelope
`signal and provides an amplified signal, a driver that receives the
`amplified signal and provides a first control signal and a second
`control signal, a P-channel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS)
`transistor that receives the first control signal, a source that
`receives 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 that
`receives the second control signal at a gate and provides a second
`supply voltage through a drain, and a source for circuit
`grounding.
`11. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the means for
`generating the second supply voltage comprises means for
`generating the second supply voltage based on an envelope
`signal and either the boosted supply voltage or the first supply
`voltage.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`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 PO Resp. 10; 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 is “refers to experience with
`mobile device architecture as well as transmission and power circuitry for
`radio frequency devices.” Pet. 49–50 (citing Ex. 1301, Abstract, 1:7–9, 30–
`31; Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 81–82).
`Our Institution Decision adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.
`Dec. on Inst. 11. Patent Owner does not dispute this issue. PO Resp. 9-10.
`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. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`(Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, 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 Pet. 49–50; Ex. 1301, Abstract,
`1:7–9, 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) (2018); see Changes to the Claim Construction
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`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 7 (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).
`
`1. “envelope signal” (claim 11)
`Petitioner offers a claim construction for “envelope signal” (claim 11)
`to mean a “signal indicative of the upper bound of the output RF signal,”
`which is the ALJ’s construction in the ITC proceeding. Pet. 39; Ex. 1323,
`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. PO Resp. 8.
`Based on the full record and for the reasons given by the ALJ (Ex.
`1323, 13–14), we adopt the ITC construction for “envelope signal” to mean
`a “signal indicative of the upper bound of the output RF signal.”
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`2. Means-Plus-Function Limitations (claim 10).
`Petitioner identifies “means for generating a boosted supply voltage
`based on a first supply voltage” (claim 10), “means for generating a second
`supply voltage based on the envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage”
`(claim 10), and “means for generating the second supply voltage based on an
`envelope signal and either the boosted supply voltage or the first supply
`voltage” (claim 11) as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112 ¶ 6. Pet. 40–47.
`With respect to “means for generating a boosted supply voltage” in
`claim 10, Petitioner identifies “generating a boosted supply voltage based on
`a first supply voltage” as the function and the structure that performs this
`function as boost converter 180, as shown in Figures 3, 5, and 6 of the ’558
`patent. Pet. 40–42 (citing Ex. 1301, 3:19–21; Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 85–86). For the
`means for generating a second supply voltage of claim 10, Petitioner
`identifies the claimed function in this limitation is “generating a second
`supply voltage based on the envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage”
`and the structure is envelope amplifier 170, as depicted in Figs. 3 and 5 of
`the ’558 patent. Pet. 43–45 (citing Ex. 1301, Fig. 3, 3:21–29, 8:46–50; Ex.
`1303 ¶¶ 89–90).
`Finally, for the means limitations of claim 11, Petitioner identifies the
`claimed function in this limitation is “generating the second supply voltage
`based on an envelope signal and either the boosted supply voltage or the first
`supply voltage” and the structure performing the function is envelope
`amplifier 170, as shown in Figures 3 and 5. Pet. 46–49 (citing Ex. 1301,
`Fig. 3, 3:27–29, 8:55–62; Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 93–94).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`Patent Owner does not challenge or contest Petitioner’s identification
`of the limitations of claims 10 and 11 as means-plus-function limitations nor
`the structures that perform the identified functions. PO Resp. 8–9. Based on
`the full record, we agree and adopt Petitioner’s identified functions and
`structures for the means-plus-function limitations of claims 10 and 11.
`3. “a source that receives the boosted supply voltage
`or the first supply voltage” (claim 10)
`Claim 10 recites “a P-channel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS)
`transistor [having] . . . a source that receives the boosted supply voltage or
`the first supply voltage.” Patent Owner argues that “the 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 [of claim 10]
`must be able to receive, selectively, either the boosted supply voltage or the
`first supply voltage (referred to herein as a ‘selective boost’).” PO Resp. 21
`(citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 51–65). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner implicitly
`construes this limitation based on the use of the term “or” as requiring only
`one of the enumerated supply voltages, but not requiring both supply
`voltages to be available at the source. PO Resp. 22.
`Patent Owner argues that
`claim 10 requires “means for generating a boosted supply voltage
`. . . having a higher voltage than the first supply voltage,” and
`further requires “means for generating a second supply voltage
`based on the envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage.”
`That is, the means for generating a boosted supply voltage must
`generate “a boosted supply voltage.” Otherwise, the “means for
`generating a second supply voltage” limitation is meaningless.
`PO Resp. 24. Petitioner acknowledges that claim 11 which depends from
`claim 10 requires the selective boost, as it recites “wherein the means for
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`generating the second supply voltage comprises means for generating the
`second supply voltage based on an envelope signal and either the boosted
`supply voltage or the first supply voltage.” See Pet. 73–74 (noting that the
`amplifier would be able to operate “selectively” to choose either the boosted
`voltage or the battery supply voltage). Patent Owner argues that the claim
`language of claims 10 and 11 and the specification expressly refer to the
`boosted supply voltage or first supply voltage. PO Resp. 23–24, 26–30.
`Our combined Final Decision in related cases IPR2018-01152 and
`IPR2018-01153 construed terms in claims 6, 8, and 13 of the ’558 patent
`that are closely related to the disputed limitation of claim 10. See Intel
`Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., IPR2018-01152, Paper 30 (“1152 Final Dec.”), 12–
`21 (PTAB Jan 15, 2020). Petitioner and Patent Owner assert substantially
`similar arguments and evidence in arguing that claims 10 recites a selective
`boost. Compare 1152 Final Dec. 12–21 with PO Resp. 21–30; Pet. Reply 3–
`8; PO Sur-reply 2–11. In IPR2018-01152 and IPR2018-01153, we
`determined that “that the specification and context of the claims support the
`broadest reasonable interpretation that claims 6, 8, and 13 require that both a
`first supply voltage and second supply voltage be available at the amplifier
`(claim 13) and PMOS transistor source (claims 6 and 8).” 1152 Final Dec.
`21. In sum, we agreed with Patent Owner’s arguments based on the context
`of the entire ’558 patent disclosure that claims 6, 8, and 13 recite limitations
`requiring selective voltages. 1152 Final Dec. 12–21.
`As we discussed in IPR2018-01152 and IPR2018-01153, and
`incorporated herein (1152 Final Dec. 12–21), 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.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`The ’558 specification and the context of claims 6, 8, and 13 and the related
`language of claim 10 support that the “source” must be able to receive both
`the boosted supply voltage and the first supply voltage (a selective boost).
`PO Resp. 35–38; Ex. 1201, 1:42–50, 5:31–49, 8:55–62, 8:62–9:17, 9:21–36,
`10:19–29, Figs. 3 and 5. Accordingly, we do not agree with Petitioner that
`the use of a conditional “or” in claim 10 indicates that only one voltage is
`necessary to meet the claims. Pet. Reply 3–9. We credit Patent Owner’s
`evidence and arguments that the language of claims 10 and 11 and the ’558
`patent specification support that claim 10, like dependent claim 11, require a
`selective boost. See PO Resp. 26–29.
`Petitioner’s arguments assert both that Patent Owner improperly limits
`the construction to one disclosed embodiment and that the Patent Owner’s
`construction improperly excludes a disclosed embodiment. Pet Reply 6–8.
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s
`construction should be rejected because it excludes an embodiment. Pet.
`Reply 6 (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
`embodiment they identify as being excluded is the preferred embodiment of
`the ’558 patent. Further, Petitioner cites no support that claims 10 or 11
`must be construed to cover all embodiments. See Baran v. Med. Device
`Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`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). 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 the manner Petitioner
`proposes. Pet. Reply 4–5 (citing Ex. 1328, 5–6). 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. 1328,
`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 claim 19. We do not agree with
`Petitioner that the court addressed the scope of claim 19 or construed the
`word “or” the claim by implication. Id. at 5–6. Petitioner’s reliance on the
`district court’s discussion is unpersuasive.
`We are also not persuaded by the extrinsic cross-examination
`testimony. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner cites compelling testimony
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`regarding the interpretation of claim 19 or related limitations in claims 6, 8,
`and 13. See Pet. Reply 8–9; PO Sur-reply 7–11.
`Based on the full record, we find that claim 10, in the context of the
`claims 6, 8, and 13 (1152 Final Dec. 20–21), and the ’558 specification
`(Ex. 1301, 1:42–50, 5:31–49; 8:55–62), requires that the source be capable
`of operating, selectively, based on the first supply voltage or the boosted
`supply voltage. PO Resp. 23–31. Accordingly, we interpret “a P-channel
`metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS) transistor [having] . . . a source that
`receives the boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage” in claim 10
`to require a selective boost. We apply this interpretation in our analysis of
`the teachings of the prior art below. See Section II.D..
`
`C. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any secondary
`considerations, if in evidence.5F
`6 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966).
`
`
`6 Patent Owner does not present any objective evidence of nonobviousness
`(i.e., secondary considerations) as to any of the challenged claims.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`D. Obviousness by Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington
`1. Overview of Chu (Ex. 1304)
`Chu is a 2008 paper titled, “A 10 MHz Bandwidth, 2 mV Ripple PA
`Regulator for CDMA Transmitters” that discloses a power amplifier that
`contains a master-slave linear and switch-mode supply modulator with fast
`dynamic transient response. Ex. 1304, 2809. Chu discloses “[a] combined
`class-AB [linear amplifier] and switch-mode regulator based supply
`modulator with a master–slave architecture achieving wide bandwidth and
`low ripple.” Id. Figure 4 of Chu, below, shows the block diagram of the
`master-slave linear and switch-mode combined supply modulator loaded
`with a PA. Id. at 2811.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts the proposed master-slave linear and
`switch-mode PA regulator block diagram
`Figure 4 shows a current sensing circuit, high gain transimpedance
`amplifier, and switch-mode regulator that form a feedback control loop that
`suppresses the current output from the linear amplifier within the switch-
`mode regulator bandwidth. Id. at 2811.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`2. Overview of Choi 2010 (Ex. 1306) and Hanington (Ex. 1325)
`Choi 2010 is a paper titled “Envelope Tracking Power Amplifier
`Robust to Battery Depletion” that describes “[a] wideband envelope tracking
`power amplifier” with an integrated boost converter to keep a stable
`operation of the power amp supply modulator. Ex. 1306, 1074.
`Hanington is an IEEE article entitled “High-Efficiency Power
`Amplifier Using Dynamic Power-Supply Voltage for CDMA Applications.”
`Ex. 1325 at 1471. Hanington is referenced in Choi 2010 (Ex. 1304, 1077
`(citing Hanington as reference [3])) as a type of boost converter used “[t]o
`prevent the degradation of the output power” for the envelope amplifier
`disclosed in Choi 2010 (Ex. 1304, 1074 (col. 1)). Hanington discloses an
`RF amplifier configuration that is described as “a high-efficiency power
`amplifier topology for use in a portable microwave communications
`system.” Ex. 1325 at 1471.
`
`3. Analysis
`Petitioner argues that claim 10 would have been obvious over Chu,
`Choi 2010, and Hanington. Pet. 51–72 (citing Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 99–131).
`Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not address whether claim 10
`requires a selective boost to teach limitation for “a source that receives the
`boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage.” See id. With respect to
`this limitation, Petitioner alleges that the limitation “a P-channel metal oxide
`semiconductor (PMOS) transistor [having] . . . a source that receives the
`boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage” is met by Choi 2010’s
`disclosure of “a boost converter to generate a boosted supply voltage that
`can be supplied to the envelope amplifier instead of a battery voltage.”
`Pet. 69. Petitioner does not address whether this PMOS transistor source is
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`capable of receiving selectively the boosted supply voltage or the first
`supply voltage. Id.; see Pet. Reply 3–10 (addressing claim construction).
`Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner fails to establish a motivation
`to combine Chu and Choi 2010. PO Resp. 31–38. We do not reach this
`argument.
`Because we determined above that claim 10, like dependent claim 11,
`requires a selective boost, Petitioner fails to provide sufficient or persuasive
`evidence that Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington teach the claim 10 limitation
`for “a source that receives the boosted supply voltage or the first supply
`voltage.” Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 10 the ’558 patent is unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington.
`
`E. Obviousness over Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers
`1. Overview of Myers (Ex. 1312)
`Myers is a United States patent that discloses “[a] method and
`apparatus for efficient power amplification of a high dynamic range signal”
`using an envelope detector, multi range modulator, and power amplifier. Ex.
`1312, code (57). Myers discloses that “multi-range modulator (270)
`efficiently amplifies the envelope of the input signal by selecting a power
`source as a function of the amplitude of the input signal.” Id. “When the
`amplitude of the input signal rises above a reference, the duty cycle and the
`amplitude are modified so as to keep the multi-range modulator in an
`operating region of high efficiency.” Id.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner contends that claim 11 would have been obvious in view of
`Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers.6F
`7 Pet. 72–82; Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 132–157.
`Petitioner maps the limitations of the claim to Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington,
`and Myers. Petitioner identifies the structures performing the identified
`functions for claim 10 and 11. Pet. 51–70, 72–73. Petitioner provides
`sufficient and persuasive evidence mapping the structures and functions of
`of Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington to the apparatus and means-plus-function
`limitations of claim 10. Pet. 51–70. With respect to claim 11, Petitioner
`states that
`The claimed this means-plus-function for this limitation is
`“generating the second supply voltage based on an envelope
`signal and either the boosted supply voltage or the first supply
`voltage.” The structure performing the function is envelope
`amplifier 170, including having an operational amplifier 310; a
`driver amplifier 312; three PMOS transistors, wherein the first
`PMOS transistor 314 has its source coupled to the drains of the
`second and third PMOS transistors and its drain providing the
`second supply voltage; the second PMOS transistor 318 has a
`source receiving the boosted supply voltage, the third PMOS
`transistor 320 has a source receiving the first supply voltage; and
`an NMOS transistor 316 with its drain providing the second
`supply voltage and its source coupled to circuit ground. Ex. 1303
`at ¶134.
`Pet. 72–73. Petitioner argues that the envelope amplifier in Chu modified
`with Choi 2010 and Myers would be equivalent to the envelope amplifier
`
`
`7 Petitioner’s ground challenges dependent claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
`but did not challenge claim 10 from which claim 11 depends. Petitioner’s
`ground directed at claim 10 also did not advance the same prior art and
`evidence as asserted against dependent claim 11. Our Final Decision
`addresses claims 11 as specified in the Petition.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`170 of the ’558 patent. Id. at 73. Chu and Choi 2010 combined with Myers
`discloses an
`envelope amplifier [that] would also be able to operate
`selectively to choose either the boosted voltage generated by the
`boost converter provided by Choi 2010 or the battery supply
`voltage already disclosed in Chu and generate the second supply
`voltage based on an envelope signal and on either of those
`voltages, as circumstances warrant. Ex. 1303 at ¶135.
`Pet. 72–73.
`Patent Owner does not contest the mapping of the limitations of
`claims 10 and 11 to the asserted prior art. See PO Resp. 31–50. Based on
`the full record, Petitioner provides persuasive and sufficient evidence, by a
`preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Chu, Choi 2010,
`Hanington, and Myers teaches the limitations, structures, and functions of
`claims 10 and 11.
`
`Motivation to Combine
`Petitioner asserts a motivation to combine Chu with Choi 2010 and
`Hanington, and a motivation to combine Chu with Myers and Choi 2010.
`Pet. 57–61 (motivations to combine Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington), 77–82
`(motivation to combine Chu, Choi 2010, and Myers); Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 107–113,
`141–147. Petitioner provides testimony and citations for a motivation to
`modify Chu to incorporate the boost converter of Choi 2010 and Hanington
`to prevent distortion as the battery voltage falls, based on teachings within
`Choi 2010. Pet. 58–59 (citing Exs. 1306, 1074, 1077); Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 107–
`108. In addition, Petitioner cites contemporary references in the art
`regarding preventing distortion of the amplified signal. Pet. 59–60 (citing
`Ex. 1318, Abstract; Ex. 1315, 8); Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 109–111.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`With respect to Myers, Petitioner argues that adding the power
`selection functions of Myers would have promoted efficiency in operation
`and improve batter depletion as evidenced directly from Myers. Pet. 77–80
`(citing Ex. 1012, 1:19–23, 3:47–59, 9:18–21); Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 142–143.
`Petitioner asserts that “[m]odifying Chu to selectively use either the battery
`or boosted voltages as taught by Myers would have been a particularly
`obvious approach in view of the well known state of battery technology” not
`operating at a fixed output voltage over time. Pet. 81; Ex. 1303 ¶ 146.
`Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s arguments are based on
`hindsight reconstruction as the references address different problems with
`different solutions that are at tension with each other. PO Resp. 31–32.
`Patent Owner does not contest that efficiency, output distortion, or
`robustness problems Petitioner identifies were generally known in the art,
`but argues that in a person of ordinary skill in the art looking to maximize
`efficiency and minimize output power de
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
