`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Demonstratives for Oral Hearing
`
`DOCKET NO.: 107131.00564US4
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By: David Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`
`Richard Goldenberg, Reg. No. 38,895
`
`Theodoros Konstantakopoulos, Reg. No. 74,155
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`60 State Street
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`
`Email: David.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`
` Richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`
` Theodoros.konstantakopoulos@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2018-01240
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL HEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Demonstratives for Oral Hearing
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 23, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`/Theodoros Konstantakopoulos/
`Theodoros Konstantakopoulos
`Reg. No. 74,155
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner,
`v.
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Patent Owner
`
`Case: IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153, IPR2018-01154,
`IPR2018-01240
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`October 28, 2019
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558 (“’558 Patent”)
`US. Patent No. 8,698,558 (“’558 Patent”)
`
`(10) Patent No.:
`(45) Date of Patent:
`
`US 8,698,558 B2
`Apr. 15, 2014
`
`LOW-VOLTAGE POWER-EFFICIENT
`ENVELOPE TRACKER
`
`meow
`Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllflllllllllillfllll“
`
`“WWW, SWMW P mm ,W
`‘
`summt,
`.ennautegnt’flntel‘lflix
`wr-‘u‘f‘
`1?;
`m» um: um MileIK‘13‘1‘M‘PJH'IMIIVI‘
`I..\\'I,wm, IRI‘AIKLH
`mun 5:: Hana.
`4mm )mcncmak
`
` ‘
`
`INTEL 1mm
`
`Inventors: Lennart K Mathe, San Diego, CA (US);
`Thomas Domenick Marra, San Diego,
`CA (US); Todd R Sutton, Del Mar, CA
`(US)
`
`‘
`
`Assignee: QUALCOMM Incorporated, San
`Diego, CA (US)
`
`21‘- lun’uhfimufl‘nu shah
`
`Notice:
`
`Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this
`patent is extended or adjusted under 35
`U.S.C. 154(b) by 38 days.
`
`13/167,659
`
`Jun. 23, 2011
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`2
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`▪ Overview of Petitions
`
`▪ “Envelope Amplifier” Claims (1-14)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Chu / Choi 2010 / Myers
`▪ PO’s Claim Construction
`
`▪ “Switcher” Claims (15-20)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Kwak
`▪ Kwak’s Feedforward Path Increases the Inductor Current
`▪ Fig. 5 v. Fig. 6
`▪ Claims 16 and 19
`
`3
`
`
`
`Overview of the Petitions
`
`IPR2018-01152
`
`IPR2018-01153
`
`IPR2018-01154
`
`IPR2018-01240
`
`“Envelope Amplifier”
`Claims
`
`Claims 12-14
`
`Claims 1-9
`
`Claims 10-11
`
`“Switcher”
`Claims
`
`Claims 15-20
`
`For ease of reference, citations herein are to single IPR case and/or exhibit numbers, but are not intended to be limiting.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Overview of the Petitions and Prior Art
`
`Claims 1-9
`
`Claims 6, 8
`
`Claim 10
`
`Claim 11
`
`IPR2018-01152
`
`IPR2018-01153
`
`IPR2018-01154
`
`IPR2018-01240
`
`Chu + Choi 2010
`+ Myers
`
`Chu + Choi 2010
`
`Chu + Choi 2010
`+ Hannington
`Chu + Choi 2010 +
`Myers + Hannington
`
`Claims 12, 14*
`
`Chu
`
`Claim 13
`
`Chu + Choi 2010
`
`Claim 13
`
`Chu + Choi 2010
`+ Myers
`
`Claim 14*
`
`Chu + Blanken
`
`Claims 15, 17, 18, 20
`
`Claim 16
`
`Claim 19
`
`* Patent Owner conceded that these claims are invalid
`
`Kwak
`
`Kwak (§103)
`
`Kwak + Choi 2010
`
`5
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`▪ Overview of Petitions
`
`▪ “Envelope Amplifier” Claims (1-14)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Chu / Choi 2010 / Myers
`▪ PO’s Claim Construction
`
`▪ “Switcher” Claims (15-20)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Kwak
`▪ Kwak’s Feedforward Path Increases the Inductor Current
`▪ Fig. 5 v. Fig. 6
`▪ Claims 16 and 19
`
`6
`
`
`
`’558 Patent – Figure 3
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 22.
`
`Ex. 1101 (’558 Patent) at Fig. 3
`
`7
`
`
`
`Claims 6 and 7
`
`Ex. 1101 (’558 patent) at Fig. 3
`
`Ex. 1101 (’558 patent) at 11:42-63
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 20-25, 38-56, 80.
`
`Ex. 1101 (’558 patent) at 11:64-67
`
`8
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`▪ Overview of Petitions
`
`▪ “Envelope Amplifier” Claims (1-14)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Chu / Choi 2010 / Myers
`▪ PO’s Claim Construction
`
`▪ “Switcher” Claims (15-20)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Kwak
`▪ Kwak’s Feedforward Path Increases the Inductor Current
`▪ Fig. 5 v. Fig. 6
`▪ Claims 16 and 19
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Concedes that Claims 12 and 14
`Are Invalid
`
`Paper 16 (POR) at 1
`
`IPR2018-01152, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 10.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Dispute
`
`▪
`
`▪
`
`Patent Owner argues that all envelope amplifier claims (1-14)
`require “selective boost”
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 6, 8, 11, and 13 do not require
`selective boost
`
`If the Board agrees with
`Petitioner on CC
`
`If the Board agrees with
`Patent Owner on CC
`
`Claims 1-9 and 13 are invalid over Chu, Choi
`2010, and Myers
`
`Claims 1-9 and 13 are invalid over Chu, Choi
`2010, and Myers
`
`Claims 6, 8, and 13 are invalid over Chu and
`Choi 2010
`
`Claims 10 and 11 are invalid over Chu, Choi
`2010, Myers, and Hanington
`
`Claims 10 and 11 are invalid over Chu, Choi
`2010, Myers, and Hanington
`
`Claim 10 is invalid over Chu, Choi 2010, and
`Hanington
`
`11
`
`
`
`Chu + Choi 2010 And Chu + Choi 2010 + Myers
`Teach All Limitations Of Claims 1-11 and 13
`
`▪
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that the limitations of claims 1-11 and 13 were all
`known in the prior art (e.g., in Chu, Choi 2010, and Myers).
`
`▪
`
`Patent Owner disputes whether a person of skill would have been motivated to
`combine these references in the manner described in the petitions.
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 16 (POR) at 1
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 16 (POR) at 2
`
`12
`
`
`
`Claims That Do Not Require “Selective Boost”
`(Claims 6, 8, 13) Are Obvious Over Chu + Choi 2010
`
`Ex. 1104 (Chu) at Fig. 4
`
`* Claim 10 is obvious over Chu + Choi 2010 + Hanington
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 30, 34
`
`Ex. 1106 (Choi 2010) at Fig. 5
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Concedes that Chu Teaches Almost
`All Limitations of Claims 1-11 and 13
`
`▪ Patent Owner argues that Chu is missing only these limitations:
`▪ “boosted voltage” / “boost converter”
`▪ “selective boost”
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 16 (POR) at 13.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Asserted Prior Art – Chu (Ex. 1104)
`
`A combined class-AB and switch-mode regulator based supply
`modulator with a master–slave architecture achieving wide
`bandwidth and low ripple is presented.
`
`Ex. 1104 (Chu) at 2809
`
`A two-stage class-AB amplifier with a common-source output
`stage, as shown in Fig. 14, is used for the linear amplifier.
`
`Ex. 1104 (Chu) at 2814
`
`In the master–slave regulator configuration, the switch-mode
`regulator serves as the slave stage, as shown in Fig. 15, and is
`driven by the class-AB amplifier sensed output currents.
`
`Ex. 1104 (Chu) at 2815
`
`A high GBW linear amplifier in voltage follower configuration
`ensures that output node VO(t) tracks the reference envelope
`voltage A(t).
`
`Ex. 1104 (Chu) at 2810
`
`Fig. 4 shows the block diagram of the proposed master–slave
`linear and switch-mode combined supply modulator loaded
`with a PA.
`
`Ex. 1104 (Chu) at 2810
`
`Ex. 1101 (’558 patent) at Fig. 3; Ex. 1104 (Chu) at Fig. 4
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 28-33, 38-56.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Asserted Prior Art – Choi 2010 (Ex. 1106)
`
`a new supply modulator architecture employing a hybrid
`switching amplifier and a boost converter is proposed.
`
`Ex. 1106 (Choi 2010) at 1074
`
`The hybrid switching amplifier (HSA) combines the advantage of
`the LDO and buck converter and simultaneously achieves high
`efficiency and linearity.
`
`Ex. 1106 (Choi 2010) at 1074
`
`As the load voltage is regulated by the linear amplifier, boosting
`up the supply voltage of the linear amplifier results in a stable
`supply voltage to the RF PA regardless of the battery depletion.
`Thus, the additional 5V boost converter … is coupled to the
`supply of the linear amplifier, while that of the switching amplifier
`is directly connected to the battery.
`
`Ex. 1106 (Choi 2010) at 1075
`
`The LTE envelope signal is shaped for the linear operation of
`the RF PA.
`
`Ex. 1106 (Choi 2010) at Abstract
`
`Ex. 1101 (’558 patent) at Fig. 3; Ex. 1106 (Choi 2010) at Fig. 5
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 34-35, 63, 66
`
`16
`
`
`
`Choi 2010 Teaches “Boosted Voltage”
`
`a new supply modulator architecture employing a hybrid
`switching amplifier and a boost converter is proposed.
`
`Ex. 1106 (Choi 2010) at 1074
`
`As the load voltage is regulated by the linear amplifier,
`boosting up the supply voltage of the linear amplifier
`results in a stable supply voltage to the RF PA regardless
`of the battery depletion. Thus, the additional 5V boost
`converter … is coupled to the supply of the linear
`amplifier, while that of the switching amplifier is directly
`connected to the battery.
`
`Ex. 1106 (Choi 2010) at Fig. 5
`
`Ex. 1106 (Choi 2010) at 1075
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 34-35, 63
`
`17
`
`
`
`Claims 6, 8, 13 – Do Not Require “Selective Boost”
`– are Obvious Over Chu + Choi 2010
`
`Claim 6
`
`Chu
`
`Choi 2010
`
`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 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.
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 38-56.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Institution Decision
`
`IPR2018-01152, Paper 9 (Institution Decision) at 22.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Response To Argument In Sur-Reply
`
`“[T]he Petition failed to explain how a POSA would combine Chu
`and Choi 2010 without destroying the benefits of one or the other.”
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 22 (Sur-Reply) at 1
`
`Q. And so in designing a power management circuit, you’re balancing
`those competing concerns providing enough power for the load
`while at the same time being as efficient as you can be. Is that fair?
`
`A.
`
`I'm not sure I'd characterize them as being competing.
`There’s certainly simultaneous concerns. You worry
`about both of those in terms of making your power
`supply work properly.
`
`Ex. 1128 (Kelley Tr.) at 13:12-20
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`Ex. 1106 (Choi 2010) at 1076, IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 43;
`see also, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 10-15
`
`20
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010
`
`Alyssa B. Apsel Ph.D.
`Professor & Director
`Elec. and Comp. Eng. Dept.
`Cornell University
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 44-45.
`
`Ex. 1103 (Apsel Decl.) at ¶ 94
`
`21
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010
`
`Q. Now, Choi 2010 does talk about battery degradation,
`right?
`
`A. Right.
`
`Q. And Choi 2010 says you can use this boost converter
`to address the battery degradation problem, right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Ex. 1128 (Kelley Tr.) at 105:20-106:4
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`Q. Choi 2010's boost converter prevents a linear
`amplifier's output power from degrading when the
`battery depletes, right?
`
`A. That's true.
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 13.
`
`Ex. 1128 (Kelley Tr.) at 156:3-6
`
`22
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010
`
`Alyssa B. Apsel Ph.D.
`Professor & Director
`Elec. and Comp. Eng. Dept.
`Cornell University
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 45-46
`
`Ex. 1103 (Apsel Decl.) at ¶ 95
`
`23
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010
`
`Alyssa B. Apsel Ph.D.
`Professor & Director
`Elec. and Comp. Eng. Dept.
`Cornell University
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 47-48.
`
`. . . .
`
`Ex. 1103 (Apsel Decl.) at ¶ 96
`
`24
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010
`
`Q.
`
`If the battery voltage gets too low, the
`output signal will become distorted,
`right?
`
`A. The output signal of the power
`amplifier. That’s right. If you don’t
`have enough battery voltage, Chu
`will not function and the power
`amplifier will not be able to
`perform.
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 14
`
`Ex. 1128 (Kelley Tr.) at 165:17-22
`
`25
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010
`
`Alyssa B. Apsel Ph.D.
`Professor & Director
`Elec. and Comp. Eng. Dept.
`Cornell University
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 45-46
`
`Ex. 1103 (Apsel Decl.) at ¶ 95
`
`26
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010
`
`Alyssa B. Apsel Ph.D.
`Professor & Director
`Elec. and Comp. Eng. Dept.
`Cornell University
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 47-48
`
`Ex. 1103 (Apsel Decl.) at ¶ 97
`
`27
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010
`
`Ex. 1104 (Chu) at Fig. 4
`
`Ex. 1106 (Choi 2010) at Fig. 5
`
`Q. And as shown in Figure 4, that PMOS transistor receives Vbat, right?
`A. That's true.
`Q. Now, if instead between Vbat and the source of that PMOS transistor we place
`the boost converter of Choi Figure 5 -- do you have that in mind?
`A. Okay.
`Q.
`In that circumstance, then the source of the PMOS transistor in the linear
`amplifier of Choi -- of Chu Figure 4 would receive the boosted supply voltage,
`right?
`A. That – if you were to choose to do that one spot, then Chu’s amplifier
`would receive the boosted supply voltage, but nothing else.
`
`Ex. 1128 (Kelley Tr.) at 54:3-17
`
`28
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`
`
`Claims That Require “Selective Boost” (Claims 1-5, 7, 9)
`Are Obvious Over Chu + Choi 2010 + Myers
`
`Ex. 1104 (Chu) at Fig. 4
`
`Ex. 1106 (Choi 2010) at Fig. 5
`
`Ex. 1112 (Myers) at Fig. 7
`
`* Claim 11 is obvious over Chu + Choi 2010 + Myers + Hanington
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 62-82
`
`29
`
`
`
`Claims 1-5, 7, 9 – Require “Selective Boost” –
`are Obvious Over Chu + Choi 2010 + Myers
`
`Claim 7
`
`Chu
`
`Choi 2010
`
`Myers
`
`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.
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 80-81.
`
`30
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Institution Decision
`
`IPR2018-01152, Paper 9 (Institution Decision) at 22.
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 9 (Institution Decision) at 24.
`
`31
`
`
`
`Asserted Prior Art – Myers (Ex. 1112)
`Teaches “Selective Boost”
`
`Ex. 1112 (Myers) at Fig. 7
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 68-69
`
`Ex. 1112 (Myers) at 9:8-21
`
`Ex. 1112 (Myers) at 9:29-32
`
`32
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010 + Myers
`
`Alyssa B. Apsel Ph.D.
`Professor & Director
`Elec. and Comp. Eng. Dept.
`Cornell University
`
`Ex. 1103 (Apsel Decl.) at ¶ 133
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 72-73.
`
`33
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010 + Myers
`
`Q. And so in designing a power management circuit, you’re balancing
`those competing concerns providing enough power for the load
`while at the same time being as efficient as you can be. Is that fair?
`
`A.
`
`I'm not sure I'd characterize them as being competing.
`There’s certainly simultaneous concerns. You worry about
`both of those in terms of making your power supply work
`properly.
`
`Ex. 1128 (Kelley Tr.) at 13:12-20.
`
`Q. And so Myers does disclose switching between a first mode and a
`second mode based upon the envelope signal with respect to a
`reference, right?
`
`A. That’s right.
`
`Q. And that means that it would switch both to the high power and to
`the low power, right?
`
`A.
`
`It could.
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 11, 22
`
`Ex. 1128 (Kelley Tr.) at 270:13-271:5
`
`34
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010 + Myers
`
`Q. …If I implemented the boost converter of Choi in Chu
`such that Chu operated off of battery power until the
`battery depleted and then I switched to using boost, that
`would save power, right?
`
`A. That would extend the useful life of the battery.
`
`Q. Right. By conserving power during the portion of time
`where it's operating off of the battery only, right?
`
`A. By both conserving power during the time it's
`operating off the battery and then you turn on the
`boost, and it lets you more fully deplete the
`battery before you run out of battery.
`
`Q. Okay. And you would agree with me that extending the
`useful life of a battery is something that is good, right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 15.
`
`Ex. 1128 (Kelley Tr.) at 281:6-282:2
`
`35
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010 + Myers
`
`Alyssa B. Apsel Ph.D.
`Professor & Director
`Elec. and Comp. Eng. Dept.
`Cornell University
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 73-74.
`
`Ex. 1103 (Apsel Decl.) at ¶ 134
`
`36
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010 + Myers
`
`Q.
`
`It was within the skill of the person of
`ordinary skill to build the circuit that
`would switch between the Vbat shown
`in Choi — sorry — shown in Chu
`Figure 4 and the boosted voltage of the
`boost converter from Choi Figure 5,
`correct?
`
`A. If you decided to do that, yes.
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 16.
`
`Ex. 1128 (Kelley Tr.) at 284:6-12
`
`37
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`▪ Overview of Petitions
`
`▪ “Envelope Amplifier” Claims (1-14)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Chu / Choi 2010 / Myers
`▪ PO’s Claim Construction
`
`▪ “Switcher” Claims (15-20)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Kwak
`▪ Kwak’s Feedforward Path Increases the Inductor Current
`▪ Fig. 5 v. Fig. 6
`▪ Claims 16 and 19
`
`38
`
`
`
`The Plain Claim Language Supports Petitioner’s
`Construction
`
`6. An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
`
`***
`… 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 … .
`
`Ex. 1101 (’558 patent) at 11:56-59
`
`▪ Plain meaning of “or” is to claim alternatives.
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 3-4.
`
`39
`
`
`
`The Plain Claim Language Supports Petitioner’s
`Construction
`
`▪ Patent Owner concedes that the plain meaning of “or”
`in patent claims is to claim alternatives.
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 19 (POR) at 20
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 4.
`
`40
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction Excludes “Always
`Boost” Embodiment
`
`Ex. 1101 (’558 patent) at 8:24-26
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 6-8.
`
`41
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction Excludes “Always
`Boost” 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?
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`A.
`
`I think that’s fair.
`
`Ex. 1128 (Kelley Tr.) at 134:12-18
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 7.
`
`42
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction Is Narrower Than
`Judge Sabraw’s Construction Under Phillips
`
`“Selective Boost”
`
`Ex. 1126 (Markman Order), at 6
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 4-5.
`
`43
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction Is Narrower Than
`Judge Sabraw’s Construction Under Phillips
`
`Q. And just to be clear, you're giving an
`opinion that is contrary to Judge Sabraw's
`claim construction, right?
`
`A.
`
`I understand what the Judge did.
`And I've reached a different
`conclusion.
`
`Ex. 1128 (Kelley Tr.) at 147:10-15
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 4-5.
`
`44
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`▪ Overview of Petitions
`
`▪ “Envelope Amplifier” Claims (1-14)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Chu / Choi 2010 / Myers
`▪ PO’s Claim Construction
`
`▪ “Switcher” Claims (15-20)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Kwak
`▪ Kwak’s Feedforward Path Increases the Inductor Current
`▪ Fig. 5 v. Fig. 6
`▪ Claims 16 and 19
`
`45
`
`
`
`Claim 15
`
`Ex. 1101 (’558 patent) at Fig. 5
`
`Ex. 1201 (’558 patent) at 13:19-34
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 3 (Petition) at 38-51
`
`46
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`▪ Overview of Petitions
`
`▪ “Envelope Amplifier” Claims (1-14)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Chu / Choi 2010 / Myers
`▪ PO’s Claim Construction
`
`▪ “Switcher” Claims (15-20)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Kwak
`▪ Kwak’s Feedforward Path Increases the Inductor Current
`▪ Fig. 5 v. Fig. 6
`▪ Claims 16 and 19
`
`47
`
`
`
`Asserted Prior Art – Kwak (Ex. 1211)
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 3 (Petition) at 39
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at Fig. 5
`
`48
`
`
`
`Claims 15-20
`
`▪ Kwak anticipates claims 15, 17-18, and 20
`
`▪ Kwak renders obvious claim 16
`
`▪ Kwak + Choi 2010 render obvious claim 19
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 3 (Petition) at 38-67.
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at Fig. 5
`
`Ex. 1101 (’558 patent) at Fig. 5
`
`49
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Concedes That Kwak Teaches All
`Limitations of Claim 15 Except “Offset”
`
`IPR2018-01154, Ex. 1201(‘’558 Patent) at 13:19-33
`
`50
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Concedes That Kwak Teaches All
`Limitations of Claim 15 Except “Offset”
`
`A.
`
`I think that in a broad sense,
`whether Kwak is doing the offset,
`as described in Claim 15, is the
`heart of the matter. Sure.
`
`IPR2018-01154, Ex. 1229 (Kelley Tr.) at 189:3-5
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`51
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`▪ Overview of Petitions
`
`▪ “Envelope Amplifier” Claims (1-14)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Chu / Choi 2010 / Myers
`▪ PO’s Claim Construction
`
`▪ “Switcher” Claims (15-20)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Kwak
`▪ Kwak’s Feedforward Path Increases the Inductor Current
`▪ Fig. 5 v. Fig. 6
`▪ Claims 16 and 19
`
`52
`
`
`
`Kwak
`
`Kwak’s
`Feedforward Path
`
`Switcher/Inductor
`Current
`
`Linear Amplifier
`Current
`
`Total/Output
`Current
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at Fig. 5
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 3 (Petition) at 39-40
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at 2666
`
`53
`
`
`
`Kwak
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at Fig. 5
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at 2666
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 3 (Petition) at 39-40, 47-49, 56; Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 10-11.
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at 2666
`
`54
`
`
`
`Kelley Drawings
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at 2666
`
`• The Parties agree that activating Kwak’s
`feedforward path:
`
`• Decreases ia
`• Does not change io
`
`• Kwak explains that ia does not only
`compensate for phase change, i.e.,
`switching ripple current. It also provides
`signal current.
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at 2666
`
`Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 10-11.
`
`IPR2018-01154, Ex. 2002 (Dr. Kelley Decl.) at ¶¶76-80
`
`55
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Admissions
`
`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?
`
`MR. SAUER: Objection; form.
`
`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 (Kelley Tr.) at 195:9-15
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 11.
`
`56
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Admissions
`
`▪ Activating Kwak’s feedforward path decreases the magnitude of
`the linear amplifier current (ia)
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`Ex. 2002 (Kelley Decl.) at ¶ 71
`
`57
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Admissions
`
`▪ Activating Kwak’s feedforward path does not change the output
`current (io)
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 9 (POR) at 27-28
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 14, 19.
`
`58
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Admissions
`
`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?
`
`MR. SAUER: Objection; form.
`
`A.
`
`I think it would be better phrased the
`switcher provides as much current as
`possible.
`
`Ex. 1229 (Kelley Tr.) at 245:15-21
`
`A. The switcher is trying to provide most of
`the current Io by way of Id.
`
`Ex. 1229 (Kelley Tr.) at 252:3-4
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 19-20
`
`59
`
`
`
`Kwak Discloses “Offset”: Equation 4
`
`ia
`
`id
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 3 (Petition) at 48.
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at Fig. 5
`
`60
`
`
`
`Kwak Discloses “Offset”: Equation 4
`
`ia
`
`id
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 3 (Petition) at 48-49.
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at Fig. 5
`
`61
`
`
`
`Kwak Discloses “Offset”: Figure 11
`
`Voltage corresponding to the output current, io
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 15
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 16 (POR) at 32;
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at Fig. 11 (annotated by PO)
`
`62
`
`
`
`Kwak Discloses “Offset”: Figure 11
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 16 (POR) at 31
`
`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 (Kelley Tr. ) at 207:9-11
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 15-16.
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at Fig. 11 (annotated by PO)
`
`63
`
`
`
`Kwak Discloses “Offset”: Figure 11
`
`Ex. 2002 (Kelley Decl.) at ¶ 87
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 15, 17-18.
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at Fig. 11 (annotated by PO)
`
`64
`
`
`
`Kwak Discloses “Offset”: Figure 11
`
`Vo
`
`Id
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Let me ask it to you this way: 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)?
`Yes. That’s what produces
`the current Ia.
`
`Ex. 1229 (Kelley Tr. ) at 217:12-19
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at Fig. 11 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 17-18.
`
`65
`
`
`
`Kwak Discloses “Offset”: Figure 11
`
`Voltage corresponding to the output current, io
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 16 (POR) at 32; Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at Fig. 11
`(annotated by PO - green circle added by Petitioner)
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 15
`
`66
`
`
`
`Summary
`
`▪ Patent Owner’s inherency argument is waived
`▪ Raised for the first time in Sur-Reply
`▪ Petitioner does not rely on inherency
`
`▪ Kwak’s text, equations and figures all show that the
`feedforward path increases the inductor current
`
`67
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`▪ Overview of Petitions
`
`▪ “Envelope Amplifier” Claims (1-14)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Chu / Choi 2010 / Myers
`▪ PO’s Claim Construction
`
`▪ “Switcher” Claims (15-20)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Kwak
`▪ Kwak’s Feedforward Path Increases the Inductor Current
`▪ Fig. 5 v. Fig. 6
`▪ Claims 16 and 19
`
`68
`
`
`
`Kwak Fig. 5
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 3 (Petition) at 31.
`
`69
`
`
`
`Kwak Fig. 5
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 21; Paper 3 (Petition) at 42.
`
`70
`
`
`
`Kwak Fig. 5
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 22; Paper 3 (Petition) at 43-45.
`
`71
`
`
`
`Kwak Fig. 5
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 22; Paper 3 (Petition) at 43.
`
`72
`
`
`
`Kwak Fig. 6 Is An Implementation of Fig. 5
`
`Alyssa B. Apsel Ph.D.
`Professor & Director
`Elec. and Comp. Eng. Dept.
`Cornell University
`
`Ex. 1203 (Apsel Decl.) at ¶ 50
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 23.
`
`73
`
`
`
`Kwak Fig. 6 Is An Implementation of Fig. 5
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at Fig. 5
`
`Ex. 1211 (Kwak) at Fig. 6
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 3 (Petition) at 42, 44; Ex. 1203 (Apsel Decl.) at ¶¶ 92, 96.
`
`74
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`▪ Overview of Petitions
`
`▪ “Envelope Amplifier” Claims (1-14)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Chu / Choi 2010 / Myers
`▪ PO’s Claim Construction
`
`▪ “Switcher” Claims (15-20)
`▪ Alleged Invention
`▪ Kwak
`▪ Kwak’s Feedforward Path Increases the Inductor Current
`▪ Fig. 5 v. Fig. 6
`▪ Claims 16 and 19
`
`75
`
`
`
`Claim 16
`
`Ex. 1201 (’558 Patent) at 14:1-3
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 3 (Petition) at 60-61; Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 25
`
`Ex. 1203 (Dr. Apsel Decl.) at ¶128
`
`76
`
`
`
`Claim 16
`
`Ex. 1201 (’558 Patent) at 14:1-3
`
`Q. Okay. So let me ask it to you this way: One way to
`implement the triangle of Figure 5, labeled A(f) would
`be as an amplifier, right?
`
`Arthur W. Kelley
`Patent Owner’s
`Expert
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`In an alternate implementation you might do
`that.
`
`Ex. 1229 (Kelley Tr.) at 225:20-226:2
`
`If the circuit A(f) was implemented as a linear
`amplifier, you could use the Vdd power supply to
`power that amplifier, right?
`
`A.
`
`That’s right.
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 24-25.
`
`Ex. 1229 (Kelley Tr.) at 227:7-10
`
`77
`
`
`
`Claim 19
`
`Ex. 1201 (’558 Patent) at 14:1-3
`
`▪ Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s mapping of claim 19 to Kwak
`and Choi 2010
`
`▪ Patent Owner does not dispute the benefits identified in the Petition with
`regard to the motivation to combine Kwak and Choi 2010
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 25-26.
`
`78
`
`
`
`Claim 19
`
`* * *
`
`POR at 42
`
`▪ Patent Owner’s argument misrepresents the record because Petitioner does
`not propose bodily incorporating Choi 2010 into Kwak
`
`▪ Petitioner argues instead that Choi 2010’s boosted supply is applicable to
`Kwak for the reasons discussed in Petition, which the PO did not dispute
`
`IPR2018-01154, Paper 19 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 25-26.
`
`79
`
`
`
`BACKUP
`BAC KU P
`
`80
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010
`
`***
`
`***
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 48-53.
`
`Ex. 1103 (Apsel Decl.) at ¶¶ 93-95
`
`81
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu + Choi 2010
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 48-53.
`
`Ex. 1103 (Apsel Decl.) at ¶¶ 96-97
`
`82
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu+ Choi 2010+Myers
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 70-71.
`
`Ex. 1103 (Apsel Decl.) at ¶¶ 130-131
`
`83
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Chu+ Choi 2010+Myers
`
`***
`
`IPR2018-01153, Paper 3 (Petition) at 71-73.
`
`Ex. 1103 (Apsel Decl.) at ¶¶ 132-134
`
`84
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01240
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Demonstratives for Oral Hearing
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 23, 2019, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing material:
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE FOR ORAL HEARING
`
`to be served upon the following by ELECTRONIC MAIL:
`
`jmsauer@jonesday.com
`dcochran@jonesday.com
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`jrnightingale@jonesday.com
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Theodoros Konstantakopoulos/
`Theodoros Konstantakopoulos
`Reg. No. 74,155
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 23, 2019
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`212-295-6367
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`