throbber
IPR2018-01240
`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
`
`

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