UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`APPLE, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01283
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,834,591
`______________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PRADEEP LALL, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated
`IPR2018-01283
`Qualcomm Ex. 2007
`Page 1 of 128
`
`

`

`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`A. Qualifications ....................................................................................... 3
`B. Materials Reviewed .............................................................................. 5
`C.
`Grounds on which Inter Partes Review has been Instituted ................ 8
`D.
`Legal Principals .................................................................................. 10
`E.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 13
`F.
`State of Battery Charging Technology in February 2006 .................. 14
`G. Overview of the ‘591 Patent ............................................................... 18
`1.
`Circuits and Methods for Fast Battery Charging .................... 18
`2.
`Overview of the ’591 Patent File History ................................ 24
`Claim Construction............................................................................. 30
`1.
`“as a voltage on the battery increases” .................................. 30
`Explanations and Opinions of the Cited References .......................... 35
`1.
`Bell ........................................................................................... 35
`2.
`Gong ......................................................................................... 68
`3.
`Kester ....................................................................................... 75
`The Bell-Kester Combination Does not Disclose or Render
`Obvious “the filtered current is reduced, in a current control mode,
`as a voltage on the battery increases” in the Challenged
`Independent Claims ............................................................................ 81
`The Challenged Independent Claims are Not Obvious in view of
`Either the Bell-Kester or Bell-Kester-Gong Combinations ............... 88
`1.
`The Prior Art Does Not Support Petitioner’s Conclusion
`that the ’591 Patent’s Charging Profile was Obvious in
`view of Bell and Kester’s Buck Regulators .............................. 88
`Petitioner Does Not Explain How the Added
`Microprocessor Would Determine Power Available for
`Charging ................................................................................ 102
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Modify Bell
`with Gong ............................................................................... 103
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 128
`
`

`

`A. Qualifications
`1. My name is Pradeep Lall. I am the MacFarlane Endowed Distinguished
`
`Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Director of the NSF-CAVE3 Electronics
`
`Research Center at Auburn University. I hold a courtesy joint appointment in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Auburn University. I have
`
`been retained by Qualcomm Incorporated to provide opinions in the inter partes
`
`review proceedings IPR2018-01283 (the ’1283 proceeding) and IPR2018-01452
`
`(the ‘1452 proceeding) challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,834,591 (the ’591 Patent).
`
`2.
`
`I have a Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mechanical Engineering from
`
`Delhi College of Engineering, a Master of Science degree from the University of
`
`Maryland, College Park in Mechanical Engineering, a Master of Business
`
`Administration degree from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern
`
`University, and a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Maryland,
`
`College Park in Mechanical Engineering.
`
`3.
`
`I was previously an engineer at Motorola, Inc. from 1994 until 2002, where I
`
`held various roles from Lead Engineer to Distinguished Member of the Technical
`
`Staff.
`
`4.
`
`At Auburn University, where I have worked in teaching and research since
`
`2002, I currently hold the position of Director for the NSF-CAVE3 Electronics
`
`Research Center and the John Anne MacFarlane Endowed Distinguished Professor.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 128
`
`

`

`I am also on the Technical-Council and Governing-Council for the NextFlex
`
`Flexible Electronics National Manufacturing Institute.
`
`5. My research and primary fields within engineering concern electronics device
`
`design, including analysis and designs to prevent or delay electronic failures and
`
`related modeling and simulations.
`
`6.
`
`I have conducted research or worked in the general field of electronics for the
`
`last 30-years, since starting my graduate studies in 1988. I have authored 2 books,
`
`14 book chapters, and over 550 journal and conference papers related to integrated
`
`circuit design, testing, reliability, and prognostics health management of electronics
`
`systems. My conference papers have been presented at national and international
`
`conferences sponsored by engineering societies, such as the Institute of Electrical
`
`and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the Surface Mount Technology Association
`
`(SMTA) International, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME),
`
`International Society of Hybrid Microelectronics (now IMAPS), and many others. I
`
`am the named inventor on three patents related to semiconductor interconnects and
`
`related structures.
`
`7.
`
`I am a fellow of the IEEE, fellow of the ASME, fellow of the Alabama
`
`Academy of Science, and a Fellow of the NextFlex Flexible Electronics National
`
`Manufacturing Institute.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 128
`
`

`

`8.
`
`I am a member of the technical council and the governing council of the
`
`NextFlex Flexible Electronics Manufacturing Institute. I also serve as the technical
`
`co-lead of the asset and situational awareness technical working group of the
`
`NextFlex Manufacturing Institute.
`
`9.
`
`I have previously served as the Vice-President of Publications for the IEEE
`
`Reliability Society. Presently, I serve on the Advisory Committee (AdCom) and the
`
`Executive Committee (ExCom) of the IEEE Reliability Society. In addition, I serve
`
`on the Board-of-Governors of the IEEE Electronic Packaging Society.
`
`10.
`
`I am recipient of the National Science Foundation IUCRC Program’s Alex
`
`Schwarzkopf Award for Technology Innovation.
`
`11.
`
`I am also the recipient of the IEEE Outstanding Sustained Technical
`
`Contribution Award and the IEEE Exceptional Technical Contribution Award. In
`
`total, my research in the general field of electronics has been recognized with over
`
`30-Awards. A list of awards and honors can be found in my CV.
`
`12. My attached Curricula Vitae (Ex. 2008) details my overall expertise and
`
`experience in the field of semiconductor design or fabrication.
`
`B. Materials Reviewed
`I have reviewed each Petition submitted in each of the ’1283 and ’1452
`13.
`
`proceedings, as well the Patent Owner Preliminary Responses submitted in each of
`
`the ’1283 and ’1452 proceedings.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 128
`
`

`

`14.
`
`I have reviewed the ’591 Patent that is included as Exhibit 1001 in each of the
`
`’1283 and ’1452 proceedings, and the prosecution history for the ‘591 Patent,
`
`excerpts of which are included as Exhibit 1002 in each of the ’1283 and ’1452
`
`proceedings.
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed each declaration of Dr. Phinney, which is Ex. 1003 in the
`
`‘1283 and ’1452 proceedings. I understand that Ex. 1003 is identical for both
`
`proceedings.
`
`16.
`
`I have reviewed each Institution Decision entered by the Panel in each of the
`
`’1283 and ’1452 proceedings.
`
`17.
`
`I have reviewed the transcript of Dr. Phinney’s deposition conducted as part
`
`of the ’1283 and ’1452 proceedings, which is Exhibit APPLE-1003 in both the ’1283
`
`and ’1452 proceedings.
`
`18. A complete listing of the documents I reviewed is as follows:
`
`Title
`Petition
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Institution Decision
`
`Petition
`
`Pr/ Ex
`IPR2018-
`01283,
`Paper 2
`IPR2018-
`01283,
`Paper 6
`IPR2018-
`01283,
`Paper 7
`IPR2018-
`01452,
`Paper 2
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 128
`
`

`

`Institution Decision
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2018-
`01452,
`Paper 6
`IPR2018-
`01452,
`Paper 7
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,834,591 to Hussain, et al
`Ex. 1002 Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the 591 Patent
`Ex. 1003 Phinney Declaration
`Ex. 1004 Curriculum Vitae of Joshua Phinney
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,723,970 to Bell
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2007/0029975 to Martin, et al
`Ex. 1007 Practical Design Techniques for Power and Thermal
`Management Edited by Walt Kester, Analog Devices 1998
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,998,972 to Gong
`Ex. 1009 USB Power Manager in ThinSOT LTC4410 Datasheet, Linear
`Technology, January 2003
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent Publ. No. 20050212484 to Denning
`Ex. 1011 Affidavit of Teresa Findlay
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,507,172 to Sherman
`Ex. 1013 Universal Serial Bus Specification
`Ex. 1014 Add Current Boost to USB Charger Driven by an AC Adapter
`Maxim Application Note 1815, December 10, 2002
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,833,686 to Veselic
`Ex. 1016 U.S. Patent No. 6,184,652 to Yang
`Ex. 1017 Lithium Ion Linear Battery Charger in ThinSOT Linear
`Technology Inc., LTC1734 Datasheet
`Ex. 1018 Digital Adjustment of DC Converter Output Voltage in
`Portable Applications Maxim Tutorial 818
`Ex. 1019 Smart Battery Charger is Programmed via the SMBus Linear
`Technology Magazine, November 1999
`Ex. 1020 Charging Batteries from USB Maxim Application Note 3607
`Ex. 1021 U.S. Patent No. 6,184,660 to Hatular
`Ex. 1022 U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2003/0169020 to Malcom
`Ex. 1023 Gas Gauging Basics Using TIs Battery Monitor ICs
`Ex. 1024 Coulomb CounterBattery Gas Gauge
`Ex. 1025 U.S. Patent No. 5,986,437 to Lee
`Ex. 1026 U.S. Patent No. 6,445,164 to Kitagawa
`Ex. 1027 U.S. Patent No. 6,512,353 to Sanzo
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 128
`
`

`

`Ex. 1029 Mohan Power Electronics Converters Applications and
`Design
`Ex. 1030 U.S. Patent No. 7,733,060 to Kojima
`Ex. 1038 U.S. Patent No. 7,701,173 to Veselic
`Ex. 2001 U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2005/0134220 to Brohlin (“Brohlin”)
`Ex. 2002 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,187 to Bryson (“Bryson”)
`Ex. 2003 U.S. Patent No. 6,369,561 to Pappalardo (“Pappalardo”)
`Ex. 2004
`U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2003/0030412 to Matsuda (“Matsuda”)
`(IPR2018-
`01283)
`Ex. 2004
`(IPR2018-
`01452)1
`Ex. 2005
`(IPR2018-
`01452)
`Ex. 2006 Transcript of Deposition of Joshua Phinney, Ph.D.
`C. Grounds on which Inter Partes Review has been Instituted
`I understand that Inter Partes Review has been instituted for claims 1, 2, 4,
`19.
`
`THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARDS
`TERMS, (7th ed. 2000)
`
`MCGRAW-HILL ELECTRONICS DICTIONARY, (5th ed. 1994)
`
`6–9, 11, 13–16, 18–21, 23–28, 30–37, 39, 42, 43, and 45 in the ’1283 Proceeding
`
`and claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 28, 30–32, 37, 39, 40, 41, and 44
`
`in the ’1452 Proceeding (collectively, the “Challenged Claims”).
`
`
`
`
`1 I do not rely on the Matsuda reference labelled as Ex. 2004 in IPR2018-01283 in
`this declaration. All references to Ex. 2004 in this declaration pertain to Ex. 2004
`in IPR2018-01452.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 128
`
`

`

`20.
`
`I understand that the four grounds on which Inter Partes Review has been
`
`instituted in the ’1283 Proceeding are:
`
`(1A) claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18-21, 23-28, 30-37, 39, 42, 43, and 45
`
`of the ’591 Patent as allegedly obvious in view of Bell and Kester (and
`
`optionally Martin);
`
`(1B) claims 6 and 9 as allegedly obvious in view of Bell, Kester, and
`
`Sherman ’172 (and optionally Martin);
`
`(1C) claims 4 and 13 as allegedly obvious in view of Bell, Kester, and
`
`Hatular (and optionally Martin);
`
`(1D) claim 14 as allegedly obvious in view of Bell, Kester, Hatular, and
`
`Sherman ’172 (and optionally Martin);
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the two grounds on which Inter Partes Review has been
`
`instituted in the ’1452 Proceeding are:
`
`(2A) claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–12, 15, 18, 21, 23, 24, 28, 30–32, 37, 39, 40, 41,
`
`and 44 of the ’591 Patent as allegedly obvious in view of Bell, Kester,
`
`and Gong (and optionally Martin);
`
`(2B) claims 4, 5, 13, and 17 as allegedly obvious in view of Bell, Kester,
`
`Gong, and Hatular (and optionally Martin).
`
`22.
`
`I understand that all asserted Grounds rely on at least Bell and Kester.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 128
`
`

`

`D. Legal Principals
`I understand that for a prior art reference to anticipate a claim, elements of a
`23.
`
`claim must be disclosed within the reference either expressly or inherently. For a
`
`claim element to be inherent in a reference, I understand that the claim element must
`
`be necessarily present in the reference. I also understand that the reference must
`
`clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed invention or direct those skilled in
`
`the art to the invention without any need for picking, choosing, and combining
`
`various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited
`
`reference.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a claim may be written in functional language by reciting a
`
`means for performing a function. For a claim written this way to be anticipated, I
`
`understand that a prior art reference must disclose the identical function as stated in
`
`the claim.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that for a combination of prior art references to render a claim
`
`prima facie obvious, all elements of that claim must be disclosed in the references
`
`that make up the combination.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if it is obvious over the prior
`
`art, i.e., if a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
`
`viewed the claimed invention as obvious. Obviousness may be shown by
`
`considering more than one item of prior art in combination with others or based on
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 128
`
`

`

`a single prior art reference in combination with the general state of the art. However,
`
`a claim is not rendered obvious merely because the various limitations of the claim
`
`can be found piecemeal in the prior art.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that obviousness requires a conclusion that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had some reason to combine
`
`the piecemeal prior art in some way that would lead to the subject matter claimed in
`
`the patent. I further understand that there must be a clear articulation of the reason
`
`or reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious. I understand that
`
`some rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A)
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices
`
`(methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E)
`
`“Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor
`
`may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based
`
`on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 128
`
`

`

`art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that prior art can also teach away from a claimed invention and
`
`that such teaching away tends to show that the claimed invention is not obvious. I
`
`also understand that a combination of prior art that yields an inoperable device, or
`
`that frustrates the intended purposes of the cited art, effectively teaches away from
`
`creating that combination.
`
`29.
`
`I understand and have been instructed that claim construction is a matter of
`
`law to be performed by the court. I further understand and have been instructed that
`
`claim terms should be construed as one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood them in light of the surrounding claim language, other claims, the
`
`specification, and its file history, which are generally referred to as intrinsic
`
`evidence. I also understand and have been instructed that cited references are
`
`considered intrinsic evidence. I also understand and have been instructed that
`
`extrinsic evidence, which is evidence outside of the file history, such as dictionaries
`
`and technical articles, may be relied upon to, for example, show how one skilled in
`
`the art would have understood the claim language at the time of the invention.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard
`
`applies for interpreting claim terms in this IPR proceeding, which means claim terms
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 128
`
`

`

`generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that it is not reasonable to interpret individual words of a claim
`
`without considering the context in which those words appear. I also understand that
`
`it is the use of a particular claim term in the context of the written description and
`
`by those of skill in the art that correctly reflects both the “ordinary” and “customary”
`
`meaning of the term in the claims.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`E.
`32. The ’591 Patent was filed on February 16, 2006. In my opinion, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) relevant to the ’591 Patent at the time of its
`
`invention would have had (a) a Bachelor’s of science degree in an engineering
`
`discipline or physics, or a closely-related field, and at least two years of work or
`
`research experience in the field of circuit design, or (b) a Master’s of science degree
`
`in an engineering discipline or physics, or a closely-related field, and at least one
`
`year of work or research experience in that same field. More work experience could
`
`compensate for less education, and vice versa. At the time of the earliest filing date
`
`to which the ’591 Patent claims priority, I was at least a person of ordinary skill.
`
`33.
`
`I note that Dr. Phinney’s Declaration defines a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art as having “at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering and at least five
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 128
`
`

`

`years of experience in the field of power electronics. Additional education can
`
`compensate for less work experience, and vice versa.”.
`
`34. To the extent there are any differences in these two definitions of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, I do not believe that there is a meaningful change of outcome
`
`using one definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art or the other.
`
`State of Battery Charging Technology in February 2006
`F.
`35. The ’591 Patent’s background summarizes at a high level what a POSITA
`
`would have known about battery charging in February 2006. At that time, “[t]ypical
`
`battery charging systems transfer power from a power source, such as an AC wall
`
`plug, into the battery. The recharging process typically includes processing and
`
`conditioning voltages and currents from the power source so that the voltages and
`
`currents supplied to the battery meet the particular battery's charging specifications.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:23-28. Battery charging circuits are designed to accommodate the
`
`charging specifications of the battery because “if the voltages or currents supplied
`
`to the battery are too large, the battery can be damaged or even explode. On the other
`
`hand, if the voltages or currents supplied to the battery are too small, the charging
`
`process can be very inefficient, or altogether ineffective.” Ex. 1001 at 1:28-35. And,
`
`“inefficient charging can impact the battery's useful lifetime (i.e., number of
`
`charge/discharge cycles available from a particular battery).” Ex. 1001 at 1:37-41.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 128
`
`

`

`36. Because battery charging depends on the battery being used, “[e]xisting
`
`battery chargers [were] typically static systems” where “[t]he charger is configured
`
`to receive power from a particular source and provide voltages and currents to a
`
`particular battery based on the battery's charge specification.” See Ex. 1001 at 1:45-
`
`49. “A typical charging profile for a deeply discharged lithium-ion cell is shown
`
`below, which is taken from Fig. 1A of Denning (APPLE-1010).” APPLE-1003 at
`
`¶34; see also Bell (APPLE-1005) at 5:49-53; Martin (APPLE-1006) at ¶¶22, 40-42;
`
`Kester (APPLE-1007) at 5.8; Kojima (APPLE-1030) at 1:24-30, 2:8-34, 4:51-64;
`
`Veselic ’173 (APPLE-1038) at 3:50-4:14.
`
`37.
`
`It was common to use a Constant Current Constant Voltage charging profile
`
`for battery charging also referred to at the CCCV profile. An example of such a
`
`profile is shown in Fig 1a of Denning. In the CCCV profile the battery was charged
`
`with a pre-charge current, typically a low value of charge current if the battery was
`
`depleted. Once the voltage at the battery terminals exceeded a pre-specified value
`
`also known as the under-voltage threshold, the circuit would switch to a constant
`
`current charge profile with a higher value of charge current. The constant current
`
`charge will continue till the time that the voltage at the battery reached the over-
`
`voltage threshold, at which time, the charging profile would switch to constant
`
`voltage charging while reducing the charge current. In the prior art current control
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 128
`
`

`

`mode the charging current was held constant as the voltage on the battery terminals
`
`increased.
`
`
`
`38.
`
`In 2006 a POSITA would have been familiar with the two predominant
`
`circuits that were used for the purpose of battery charging at the time of the ’591
`
`patent including linear regulators and switching regulators. Linear regulators
`
`controlled charging voltage and current by varying a Bipolar Junction Transistor
`
`(BJT) in the ohmic region to condition the charging power by power dissipation (in
`
`the form of heat) through the BJT. The second, and more efficient but substantially
`
`more complex circuit for charging was switching regulators, which vary the amount
`
`of time that the charging circuit is turned on such that the average current and voltage
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 128
`
`

`

`delivered to the battery may be conditioned from the input source. Thus, in a
`
`switching regulator, power delivered to the battery may be reduced by periodically
`
`turning off charging for longer periods-of-time so that the average power delivered
`
`over time is lower, rather than dissipating power as heat. The proportion of time that
`
`the circuit is on is referred to as the duty cycle, where a duty cycle of one corresponds
`
`to a circuit that is on all the time. This makes switching regulators much more
`
`efficient, but the control mechanisms for switching are more complicated. A
`
`POSITA would have understood these tradeoffs.
`
`39. At the time of the ’591 patent, both linear and switching regulators were
`
`common and both implemented the CC-CV charging profiles that were considered
`
`ideal at the time.
`
`40. Switching regulators come in three primary forms – buck converters, buck-
`
`boost convertors and boost converters. The circuits differ in the relationship of the
`
`input voltage to the output voltage and the connection terminal location of an
`
`inductor in the circuit. In the buck configuration, one end of the inductor is
`
`connected to the output. In the buck-boost one end of the inductor is connected to
`
`ground. In the boost configuration, one end of the inductor is connected to the input.
`
`The buck configuration is a step-down configuration in which the output voltage is
`
`lower than the input voltage, i.e., voltage “steps down” the input-voltage to achieve
`
`the output value of voltage. The buck-boost configuration could be configured as
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 128
`
`

`

`either step-up or step down configuration, i.e., the output voltage could be higher or
`
`lower than the input voltage. The boost configuration was a step-up configuration
`
`in which the output voltage was higher than the input voltage. ‘591 patent describes
`
`a charging circuit that utilizes a buck converter topology. APPLE-1001 at 17:34-50.
`
`G. Overview of the ‘591 Patent
`Circuits and Methods for Fast Battery Charging
`1.
`41. The ’591 patent describes circuits and methods for fast-charging batteries
`
`safely, while also prolonging a battery’s useful life. APPLE-1001 at 1:21-59; 19:18-
`
`22; Fig. 10A. The ‘591 patent discloses a charging circuit which couples to a buck-
`
`converter topology for charging of the battery. In particular, the patent discloses
`
`charging circuits and methods that provide to a battery with a charging current that
`
`is greater than an input current received by the charging circuit, while also
`
`controlling (i.e., reducing) the charging current to the battery as the battery voltage
`
`increases. See, e.g., id. at 6:67-7:3; 7:10-18; 17:34-41; 19:18-22.
`
`42. The ’591 patent invention is “described in the context of charging a lithium
`
`ion (‘Li+’) battery.” APPLE-1001 at 8:20-21. However, the specification of the
`
`’591 patent explains that the charging methods described in the patent could be used
`
`for charging of the nickel-cadmium or nickel metal hydride batteries. Ex. 1001 at
`
`8:17-27. Figure 10A illustrates the relationship between input current (annotated in
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 128
`
`

`

`green), current at the battery (annotated in red), and voltage on the battery (annotated
`
`in orange) during a current control mode (annotated in blue).
`
`
`
`
`43. The specification explains “[a]s shown in FIG. 10A the [red] current into the
`
`battery may be larger than the [green] current received by the switching regulator.”
`
`Id. at 19:18-19; The [red] current is the output current to the battery for the purpose
`
`of charging and the [green] current is the input current into the charger from the
`
`current source. And, “[a]s the [orange] battery voltage increases, the [red] current
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 128
`
`

`

`into the battery may be reduced so that the input current remains approximately
`
`constant.” Id. at 19:24-26. If the voltage on the battery terminals increases and the
`
`battery charging current were to stay the same, then the input current demanded from
`
`the source would start to increase in order to supply the higher output power. The
`
`specifications of the ‘591 patent explains that in some configurations, it may be
`
`desirable to maintain the input current below a certain level to prevent the power
`
`demanded at the input from exceeding the power capability of the source (19:26-
`
`33). Variations of this behavior are claimed in the last wherein clause of independent
`
`claims 1, 8, and 32. Id. at Cl. 1, 8, and 32.
`
`44. The specification of the ’591 patent explains that this reduction in current does
`
`not happen incidentally because of the power constraint but rather requires the circuit
`
`topology to reduce battery current through the use of analog or digital means based
`
`on sensed input current or the sensed battery voltage. For example, the ’591 patent
`
`(Ex. 1001) explains at 19:42-48 that, “As mentioned above, either analog or digital
`
`techniques may be used to control the battery current. Additionally, the system may
`
`sense either the input current to the Switching regulator or battery Voltage to
`
`implement battery current control.” Thus, the reduction in current may be
`
`commanded because of the limitation of input current to the charger if the charger is
`
`already drawing an input current equal to the limiting value of the power source or
`
`the reduction may be commanded by the circuit topology because of the increase in
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 128
`
`

`

`voltage of the battery terminals. In the second case, the reduction would thus, be not
`
`because of the power constraint. In both cases, the reduction will need to be
`
`commanded by analog or digital means not occur incidentally. The chronological
`
`progression of charging currents, voltages, and powers described in the
`
`specifications of the ’591 patent is as follows:
`
`For battery-charging:
`Vbat increases with the increase in
`state-of-charge of the battery:
`Constant Iout will result in increase in
`output power and increase in input
`power-demand
`Increase in INPUT POWER at constant
`input voltage will require an increase
`in input current.
`19:18-27 explains that in order to
`keep the Iin ≤ IUSB the charge current
`must be reduced.
`
`V≥
`bat
`
`V
`out
`batV ↑
`
`P
`out
`
`↑
`
`I
`
`out
`
`=
`
`Constant
`
`P
`in
`
`↑
`
`V Constant
`=
`in
`I
`⇒ ↑
`in
`
`inI Constant
`
`
`
`45. The prior art at the time of the ‘591 patent used a constant current profile in
`
`the current control mode. Constant current was used in Li+ ion batteries and in other
`
`battery chemistries. In order to support the prior art’s constant current charging in
`
`the current-limited environment a POSITA would understand that the maximum
`
`value of the battery charging power should be designed not to exceed the input
`
`current limit, thus eliminating the need to taper battery charging current and allow
`
`for a constant current throughout the current-control mode. A POSITA would size
`
`battery chargers to support the full range of power required to implement the CC-
`
`
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 128
`
`

`

`CV battery charging profile because constant current during current control in a fast
`
`charging cycle was considered the ideal charging method to optimize charge time
`
`and battery life. Because the voltage at the battery terminals increases as the battery
`
`charges, the power draw from the input source will continue to increase if the battery
`
`charging current is set to a constant-value as required in the prior art’s constant
`
`current charging. Given that power sources usually have a fixed input voltage, a
`
`higher power draw results in an increase in the input current from a lower value at
`
`the start of the charging cycle to the limiting value at the end of the constant current
`
`charging phase. Limiting the charging current to not exceed the power constraints
`
`of the power supply of course results in a longer charging time than would be
`
`possible using the fast-charging profile of the ‘591 patent. In other words, the prior-
`
`art’s constant current charging uses an input current equal to the limit of the power
`
`source at the end of the current control mode, not at the beginning. In contrast, the
`
`‘591 patent’s current topology allows for a charging current based on the input
`
`current limit at the beginning of the current control mode. The ‘591 patent thus,
`
`teaches away from the prior-art.
`
`
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 128
`
`

`

`46. Claims 1, 8, and 32 are the independent claims of the ’591 patent. For
`
`example, Claim 1 recites:2
`
`[1a] A Universal Serial Bus (USB) battery charger comprising:
`[1b] a switching regulator having at least one switching transistor, the
`switching transistor having a first input and a first output, wherein the
`first input of the switching transistor is coupled to a USB power source;
`and
`[1c] a filter having a first input and a first output, wherein the first input of the
`filter is coupled to the first output of the switching transistor;
`[1d] wherein the switching regulator is configured to receive a USB voltage,
`and generate a switching signal to a control terminal of the switching
`transistor, and [1e] wherein a switching current and a switching voltage
`at the output of the switching transistor are coupled through the filter to
`a battery to generate a filtered current and a filtered voltage to charge
`the battery, wherein the battery is coupled to the first output of the filter,
`[1f] wherein the filtered current is greater than a first input current into the
`first input of the switching transistor, and [1g] the filtered current is
`reduced, in a current control mode, as a voltage on the battery increases.
`APPLE-1001 at Cl. 1.
`
`
`2 Claim 1 is presented as published in the ’591 patent. For the Board’s
`convenience, I have included annotations for individual elements of Claim 1 based
`on the same convention used by Petitioner and Dr. Phinney.
`
`
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 128
`
`

`

`47. Claims 8