Patent No. 7,834,591
`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR: Unassigned
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOSHUA PHINNEY IN SUPPORT
`OF INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,834,591
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4
`
`II. Qualifications ...................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`III. Summary of Opinions ........................................................................................................................ 9
`
`IV. Level of ordinary skill ...................................................................................................................... 10
`
`V. Claim Construction .......................................................................................................................... 11
`
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................................... 15
`A. Anticipation .................................................................................................................................... 15
`B. Obviousness ................................................................................................................................... 16
`
`VII. Background and Overview .......................................................................................................... 17
`A. Background on Battery Charge Controller Technology ................................................................ 18
`1.
`Input Current Regulation ........................................................................................................... 28
`2. USB Enumeration ...................................................................................................................... 30
`3. Linear vs. Switching Chargers ................................................................................................... 32
`B. Overview of the ’591 patent ........................................................................................................... 38
`1. Analog controller ....................................................................................................................... 45
`2. Digital controller ....................................................................................................................... 48
`3.
`Prosecution History ................................................................................................................... 49
`
`VIII. The Technology of the ’591 Patent was Well-known ................................................................ 50
`A. Universal Serial Bus (USB) Battery Chargers Were Well Known ................................................ 51
`B. Battery Charger Controllers With Programmable Data Storage Elements Were Well Known .... 55
`C. USB Battery Chargers Including a Switching Regulator Were Well Known ................................ 59
`D. Reducing Current Supplied to a Battery in a Current Control Mode Was Well Known ............... 62
`1. Gong Teaches a Regulating Circuit That Controls the Battery Charging Rate to Limit the
`Power Drawn From a Power Source .................................................................................................. 62
`2. Bell Teaches a Regulating Circuit That Controls the Battery Charging Rate to Limit the Power
`Drawn From a Power Source ............................................................................................................. 64
`3. The LTC4410 Datasheet Teaches a Regulating Circuit That Lowers the Battery Charging Rate
`to Limit the Current Drawn From a Power Source ............................................................................ 66
`E.
`Switching Battery Chargers Including a Filter Were Well Known ................................................ 67
`F.
`Switching Battery Chargers Providing Charging Current is Greater Than Input Current Were
`Well Known ............................................................................................................................................ 68
`
`IX. The Claimed Subject Matter of the ’591 Patent is Obvious In view of the Prior Art ................ 70
`A. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18-21, 23-28, 30-37, 39, 42, 43, and 45 are Rendered Obvious by
`Bell in view of Kester (and optionally Martin) ....................................................................................... 70
`1. Overview of Bell ....................................................................................................................... 70
`2. Overview of Kester .................................................................................................................... 78
`3. Overview of Martin ................................................................................................................... 82
`4. Reasons to Combine Bell and Kester (and optionally Martin) .................................................. 86
`5. Combination of Bell, Martin, and Kester .................................................................................. 93
`6. Application of the Combination to the Claims ........................................................................ 118
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Claims 6 and 9 are Rendered Obvious by Bell in view of Kester, and Sherman ’172 (and
`optionally Martin)................................................................................................................................. 218
`1. Overview of Sherman ’172 ...................................................................................................... 219
`2. Reasons to Combine Bell, Kester, and Sherman ’172 ............................................................. 220
`3. Application of the Combination to the Claims ........................................................................ 221
`C. Claims 4 and 13 are Rendered Obvious over Bell in view of Kester, and Hatular (and optionally
`Martin) .................................................................................................................................................. 226
`1. Overview of Hatular ................................................................................................................ 226
`2. Reasons to Combine Bell, Kester, and Hatular (and optionally Martin) ................................. 229
`3. Application of the Combination to the Claims ........................................................................ 233
`D. Claim 14 is Rendered Obvious over Bell in view of Kester, Hatular, and Sherman ’172 (and
`optionally Martin)................................................................................................................................. 241
`4. Application of the Combination to the Claims ........................................................................ 242
`E. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 18, 21, 23, 24, 28, 30-32, 37, 39, 40, 41, and 44 are Rendered
`Obvious by Bell in view of Kester and Gong (and optionally Martin) ................................................. 243
`1. Overview of Gong ................................................................................................................... 244
`2. Reasons to Combine Bell, Kester, and Gong (and optionally Martin ..................................... 249
`3. Combination of Bell, Kester, and Gong (and optionally Martin) ............................................ 253
`4. Application of the Combination to the Claims ........................................................................ 266
`F. Claims 4, 5, 13, and 17 are Rendered Obvious by Bell in view of Kester, Gong, and Hatular (and
`optionally Martin)................................................................................................................................. 351
`1. Reasons to Combine Bell, Kester, Gong, and Hatular (and optionally Martin) ...................... 351
`2. Application of the Combination to the Claims ........................................................................ 353
`
`X. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,834,591 to Hussain, et al. (“the ’591 patent”)
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’591 Patent (“the
`Prosecution History”)
`
`APPLE-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Joshua Phinney
`
`APPLE-1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Joshua Phinney
`
`APPLE-1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,723,970 to Bell (“Bell”)
`
`APPLE-1006
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0029975 to
`Martin, et al. (“Martin”)
`
`APPLE-1007
`
`“Practical Design Techniques for Power and Thermal
`Management,” Edited by Walt Kester, Analog Devices, 1998,
`ISBN-0-916550-19-2 (“Kester”)
`
`APPLE-1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,998,972 to Gong (“Gong”)
`
`APPLE-1009
`
`“USB Power Manager in ThinSOT,” LTC4410 Datasheet,
`Linear Technology, January 2003 (“LTC4410”)
`
`APPLE-1010
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0212484 to
`Denning, et al. (“Denning”)
`
`APPLE-1011
`
`Affidavit of Teresa Findlay
`
`APPLE-1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,507,172 to Sherman (“Sherman ’172”)
`
`APPLE-1013
`
`Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0
`
`APPLE-1014
`
`“Add Current Boost to USB Charger Driven by an AC
`Adapter,” Maxim Application Note 1815, December 10, 2002
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`APPLE-1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,833,686 to Veselic, et al.
`
`APPLE-1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,184,652 to Yang (“Yang”)
`
`APPLE-1017
`
`“Lithium-Ion Linear Battery Charger in ThinSOT,” Linear
`Technology Inc., LTC1734 Datasheet
`
`APPLE-1018
`
`“Digital Adjustment of DC-DC Converter Output Voltage in
`Portable Applications,” Maxim Tutorial 818
`
`APPLE-1019
`
`“Smart Battery Charger is Programmed via the SMBus,” Linear
`Technology Magazine, November 1999
`
`APPLE-1020
`
`“Charging Batteries from USB,” Maxim Application Note 3607
`
`APPLE-1021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,184,660 to Hatular (“Hatular”)
`
` APPLE-1022
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0169020 to Malcom
`(“Malcolm”)
`
`APPLE-1023
`
`“Gas Gauging Basics Using TI’s Battery Monitor ICs,”
`Application Report SLVA102A, October 2003
`
`APPLE-1024
`
`“Coulomb Counter/Battery Gas Gauge,” LTC4150 datasheet,
`Linear Technology, 2003
`
`APPLE-1025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,986,437 to Lee (“Lee”)
`
`APPLE-1026
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,445,164 to Kitagawa (“Kitagawa”)
`
`APPLE-1027
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,512,353 to Sanzo et al. (“Sanzo”)
`
`APPLE-1028
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1029
`
`Mohan et al, “Power Electronics: Converters, Applications, and
`Design,” 2nd ed., Wiley & Sons, 1995
`
`APPLE-1030
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,733,060 to Kojima (“Kojima”)
`
`
`
`2
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`APPLE-1031
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1032
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1033
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1034
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1035
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1036
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1037
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1038
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,701,173 to Veselic (“Veselic ’173”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Joshua Phinney, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am a Principal Engineer in the Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science practice at Exponent, an engineering and scientific consulting firm
`
`headquartered at 149 Commonwealth Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert consultant in this
`
`proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “Patent
`
`Office”). I am a salaried employee of Exponent. Exponent charges an hourly rate
`
`of $470 plus expenses for my work performed in connection with this case. My
`
`compensation is not dependent on the opinions I render or the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 7,834,591
`
`(“the ’591 patent”). I have been asked to consider whether certain references
`
`disclose or suggest certain features recited in the claims of the ’591 patent. The
`
`references I considered are listed in the Appendix to my Declaration, and for
`
`convenience I refer to these references using the short names listed in the
`
`Appendix. It is my opinion that the references discussed below collectively
`
`disclose or render obvious all of claims 1-45 of the ’591 patent.
`
`4.
`
`I have been informed that the application for the ’591 patent was filed
`
`on February 16, 2006, as U.S. Patent Application No. 11/356,594 (“the ’594
`
`
`
`4
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Application”), and issued on November 16, 2010. The ’591 patent does not claim
`
`priority to any earlier applications. I have been informed that the ’591 patent was
`
`originally assigned to Summit Microelectronics, Inc. (“Summit”).
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology (“MIT”) in 2005. I also earned S.M. and B.S. degrees in
`
`Electrical Engineering from MIT and the University of Illinois, Chicago (“UIC”),
`
`respectively.
`
`6.
`
`After earning my Ph.D., I joined Exponent and have led technical
`
`investigations pertaining to portable electronic devices, microcomputers, and
`
`electromechanical devices with embedded controllers. My job functions include
`
`analyzing hardware and software of these devices to understand their modes of
`
`failure, and testifying regarding these devices in legal matters involving patents
`
`and trade secrets.
`
`7.
`
`I have testified regarding the software-defined features, internal
`
`circuitry, and physical embodiments of electronic equipment.
`
`8.
`
`Regarding software, I have reviewed C++, Java, and machine
`
`language code for purposes of patent infringement and trade secret
`
`misappropriation. I have testified regarding microcomputer software for instrument
`
`
`
`5
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`control as well as embedded software for the control of machines, computer
`
`peripherals, tablets, cell phones, and other battery-operated equipment.
`
`9.
`
`Regarding electronics, I have testified regarding power electronics in
`
`microcomputers, peripherals, machine controllers, and consumer electronics
`
`including tablets, cell phones, and portable media players. I have most recently
`
`submitted declarations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office concerning re-
`
`examinations of patents at stake in Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Blackberry
`
`Ltd,1 which dealt with the power electronics and control of USB-powered battery
`
`chargers. In addition, I have testified regarding power-management circuitry in
`
`laptops, desktop microcomputers, and battery-operated point-of-sale equipment.
`
`10. Regarding the mechanical elements of electronic equipment, I have
`
`testified regarding buttons and touch interfaces, connectors, linear and rotary
`
`actuators, position-measuring devices, and the design and construction of modular
`
`housings for computerized equipment and peripherals. In particular, I have
`
`testified regarding user interfaces (including buttons, indicators, touch interfaces
`
`and card readers) as they are constructed in relation to the housing and underlying
`
`electronic assemblies, including printed circuit boards, flex printed circuits, and
`
`other connector assemblies within the housing of electronic equipment.
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 6,833,686, [IPR2014-00397 or IPR2014-00400] before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`
`
`6
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`11.
`
`I have most recently been disclosed as an expert, at trial for testimony,
`
`deposed or submitted an Expert Report to the court in:
`
`a. Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No.
`
`00-5141.
`
`b. IBM v. ASUSTek Computer, Inc., United States International Trade
`
`Commission Unfair Import Investigation No. 337-TA-628
`
`c. Xentaur Corp. v. Bedros Bedrossian, N.Y. Sup. Ct. No. 23403/06
`
`d. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics. Corp., United States
`
`International Trade Commission Unfair Import Investigation No.
`
`337-TA-796
`
`e. Guzik Tech. Enterprises, Inc. v. Western Digital Corp. et al., Case
`
`No. 5:11-CV-03786-PSG, N.D. Cal.
`
`f. L-3 Communications Corporation et al v. Jaxon Engineering &
`
`Maintenance, Civil Action No. 10-cv-2868-MSK-KMT, District of
`
`Colorado.
`
`g. Smart Skins LLC v. Microsoft Corporation. Case No. 2:15-CV-
`
`00544-MJP in the United States District Court, Western District of
`
`Washington at Seattle.
`
`
`
`7
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`h. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Treasury Department v. OPG
`
`Technology Corp., Case No. 15-3125 in the in the United States
`
`District Court, District of Puerto Rico.
`
`i. IPS Group, Inc. v. Duncan Solutions, Inc. and Duncan Parking
`
`Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:15CV1526-CAB (MDD) in the
`
`United States District Court, Southern District of California.
`
`j. Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corp. and ZTE USA Inc. and Maxell, Ltd. v.
`
`Huawei Device USA Inc. and Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Case Nos.
`
`5:16-cv-00178-RWS and 5:16-cv-00179-RWS in the United States
`
`District Court, Eastern District of Texas.
`
`12.
`
`I have most recently submitted declarations to the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office concerning post-grant proceedings for patents at stake in:
`
`a. Apple Inc. v. Yozmot, IPR2015-00761 before the U.S. Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board.
`
`b. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2014-00397
`
`and IPR2014-00400 before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`c. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. v. Songkick.com BV, PGR2017-
`
`00038 before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`
`
`8
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`13.
`
`I am co-inventor on patents for improving the performance of
`
`capacitors, EMI filters, and common-mode chokes.
`
`14. Additional details about my employment history, fields of expertise,
`
`and publications are further described in my curriculum vitae, which is listed as
`
`Exhibit APPLE-1004.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`15. My opinions in this Declaration are based on my review of the ’591
`
`patent, its prosecution history before the Patent Office, and the materials identified
`
`in Appendix A to this Declaration. In addition, I draw upon my experience and
`
`knowledge of power electronics systems, including battery charge controllers and
`
`power converters.
`
`16. To summarize the conclusions that I have formed based on my
`
`analysis:
`
`a. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18-21, 23-28, 30-37, 39, 42, 43, and
`
`45 are rendered obvious by Bell in view of Kester and Martin;
`
`b. Claims 6 and 9 are rendered obvious by Bell in view of Kester,
`
`Martin, and Sherman ’172;
`
`c. Claims 4, and 13 are rendered obvious over Bell in view of Kester,
`
`Martin, and Hatular;
`
`
`
`9
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`d. Claim 14 is rendered obvious over Bell in view of Kester, Martin,
`
`Hatular, and Sherman ’172;
`
`e. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 18, 21, 23, 24, 28, 30, 31, 37, 39, 40,
`
`41, and 44 are rendered obvious by Bell in view of Martin, Kester,
`
`and Gong; and
`
`f. Claims 4, 5, 13, and 17 are rendered obvious by Bell in view of
`
`Kester, Martin, Gong, and Hatular.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`17. My opinions have been guided by my consideration of how a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have understood the claims of the ’591
`
`patent on the filing date of the ’594 Application, February 26, 2006, which I will
`
`refer to as the “time of the alleged invention.”
`
`18. At the time of the alleged invention, a POSITA for the technology of
`
`the ’591 patent would have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering and at least five years of experience in the field of power electronics.
`
`Additional education can compensate for less work experience, and vice versa.
`
`This opinion is based on my understanding of the typical minimum qualifications
`
`of those working in the field at that time. I have been informed that, as a matter of
`
`law, the hypothetical POSITA is deemed to be aware of all relevant prior art,
`
`including all of the references discussed in this Declaration.
`
`
`
`10
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the best indicator of claim meaning is its usage in the
`
`context of the patent specification as understood by a POSITA. I further
`
`understand that the words of the claims should be given their plain meaning unless
`
`that meaning is inconsistent with the patent specification or the patent’s history of
`
`examination before the Patent Office. I also understand that the words of the
`
`claims should be interpreted as they would have been interpreted by a POSITA at
`
`the time of the invention was made (not today). Because I do not know at what
`
`date the invention as claimed was made, I have used the earliest priority date
`
`(which is the filing date in this instance) of U.S. Patent No. 7,834,591 as the point
`
`in time for claim interpretation purposes. That date was February 16, 2006. I have
`
`been asked to provide my interpretation of the following terms and phrases of the
`
`’591 patent set forth below.
`
`20. Two terms recited in the claims of the ’591 patent are means-plus-
`
`function limitation subject to the requirements § 112, ¶ 6. I understand that it is the
`
`burden of the Petitioner to identify structure in the specification corresponding to
`
`the claimed function for means-plus-function terms.
`
`21.
`
` “Means for sensing the input current” (claim 35). The claimed
`
`function is “sensing input current.” The corresponding structure described in the
`
`specification is an input sense resistor, a transistor, or an inductive sensor. See
`
`
`
`11
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`’591 patent (APPLE-1001) at 21:2-5. (“In this example, the input sense resistor
`
`1102 is the means for sensing the first input current received by the switching
`
`regulator. Equivalent sensing means may include transistor or inductive sense
`
`techniques, for example.”); 22:15-17 (“In this example, the input current sense
`
`circuit is a current sense resistor 1202 coupled to the input of switching regulator
`
`1210.”)
`
`22.
`
`“Means for sensing the output voltage on the battery” (claim 44).
`
`The claimed function is “sensing output voltage on a battery.” The corresponding
`
`structure described in the specification is a battery sense terminal, an input, or an
`
`analog-to-digital circuit. Id. at 22:12-19 (“Analog controller 1245 may be coupled
`
`to … the battery terminal for sensing the battery voltage… Analog controller 1245
`
`may have an input coupled to the battery….”); 22:33-34 (“battery sense in-put
`
`terminal 1312”); 23:17-18 (“a battery sense terminal 1401 is coupled to a battery to
`
`be charged”); 11:13-14 “analog-to-digital circuits… that sense battery voltage and
`
`current”).
`
`23. Regarding the term “coupled to,” a POSITA would have understood
`
`the plain meaning of this term to be “connected directly or indirectly by electronic
`
`components.” I note that nothing in the claim language requires a direct
`
`connection nor does anything in claim language preclude a connection through
`
`intermediate circuit elements. This is true even if the intermediate circuit elements
`
`
`
`12
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`alter signals between coupled devices. Thus, one component can be coupled to
`
`another even if the connection is only through a number of intervening circuit
`
`elements. The specification of the ’591 patent supports this interpretation, showing
`
`that a signal at the beginning of the coupling can be different from the signal at the
`
`end of the coupling. See ’591 patent (APPLE-1001) at 11:20-22, Fig. 5. For
`
`example, in Fig. 5, the regulator 410 has “an output coupled to battery 550 through
`
`a filter, comprising an inductor 502 and capacitor 503, and a current sense resistor
`
`501.” Id. at 11:20-22 (emphasis added). A POSITA would recognize that a filter
`
`often alters a signal, for example, by removing or altering at least some
`
`components of a signal. Indeed, this alteration of a signal is often the purpose of
`
`passing a signal through a filter, allowing a POSITA to reasonably expect that a
`
`filter would alter a signal. Thus, a component can be “coupled to” another even
`
`though intermediate components alter signals transmitted between the components.
`
`The ’591 patent shows additional examples where coupling occurs through
`
`intermediate components in Figs. 4, 8, 11, and 12. Id. at 9:65-10:9, 20:38-42,
`
`21:55-62. As yet another example, the term coupling applies when circuitry along
`
`the path of coupling to transforms a signal or uses a one signal to generate and
`
`provide a different signal. For example, the ’591 patent states that “data storage
`
`[is] coupled to current controller 1120 and voltage controller 1130,” though Fig. 11
`
`shows the coupling between the current controller 1120 and storage elements (e.g.,
`
`
`
`13
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`memory 1146, NV memory 1147, registers 1121, 1122) only through a selection
`
`module 1123 and a digital-to-analog converter DAC which would generate a new
`
`analog signal from the input digital signal. Id. at 20:60-63, Fig. 11. In this
`
`example of components being coupled, none of the original current or voltage from
`
`the digital signal is provided through the coupling, but a different signal, generated
`
`in part using the digital signal, is provided through the coupling. Id. This
`
`demonstrates that two elements can be coupled even if the circuit path between
`
`them uses a signal at one end of the coupling to generate and provide a new signal
`
`at the other end of the coupling.
`
`24. Regarding the term “coupling,” a POSITA would have understood the
`
`plain meaning of this term to be “providing a direct or indirect connection with
`
`electronic components.” As discussed for “coupled to” above, the ’591 patent
`
`allows coupling to include intervening elements and alterations of signals along the
`
`path that provides the coupling. For example, the ’591 patent uses “coupling”
`
`broadly to refer to a connection between a USB power source and a battery, where
`
`the entire circuit of the ’591 patent is an intermediate element: “When the battery
`
`850 is depleted, it may be recharged by coupling voltage and current from a power
`
`source 810 to the battery 850 through a switching regulator 803 and filter 804.”
`
`Id. at 16:51-53. Voltage and current from the USB power source 810 are clearly
`
`altered by the intervening regulator 803 before reaching the battery 850. Id. at
`
`
`
`14
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`17:3-34. This example, and the others noted in the preceding paragraph,
`
`demonstrate that “coupling,” like “coupled to,” encompasses a connection through
`
`intermediate circuit elements that significantly changes the character of signals,
`
`even using a signal at one end of the coupling to generate and provide a new signal
`
`at the other end of the coupling. Thus, a signal can be “coupled to” a terminal even
`
`if only a portion of, an altered version of, the voltage or current arrives at the
`
`terminal, or even if the signal is used to generate a new signal provided to the
`
`terminal.
`
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A. ANTICIPATION
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element of a claim, as properly construed,
`
`is found either explicitly or inherently in a single prior art reference. Under the
`
`principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or
`
`includes the claimed limitations, it anticipates.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
`if the claimed invention was known or used by others in the U.S., or was patented
`
`or published anywhere, before the applicant’s invention. I further have been
`
`informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the invention was
`
`patented or published anywhere, or was in public use, on sale, or offered for sale in
`
`
`
`15
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`this country, more than one year prior to the filing date of the patent application
`
`(critical date). And a claim is invalid, as I have been informed, under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e), if an invention described by that claim was described in a U.S. patent
`
`granted on an application for a patent by another that was filed in the U.S. before
`
`the date of invention for such a claim.
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of one or more prior art references if it would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA, taking into account (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-
`
`obviousness, which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii)
`
`commercial success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results
`
`of the claimed invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by others.
`
`For purposes of my analysis above and because I know of no indication from the
`
`patent owner or others to the contrary, I have applied a date of February 16, 2006,
`
`as the date of invention in my obviousness analyses, although in many cases the
`
`same analysis would hold true even at an earlier time than February 16, 2006.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a
`
`
`
`16
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`single prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason to
`
`modify the single prior art reference, or combine two or more references, in order
`
`to achieve the claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine, or may come from the reference or
`
`references themselves, the knowledge or “common sense” of one skilled in the art,
`
`or from the nature of the problem to be solved, and may be explicit or implicit
`
`from the prior art as a whole. I have been informed that the combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`
`no more than yield predictable results. I also understand it is improper to rely on
`
`hindsight in making the obviousness determination.
`
`29.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a POSITA, having the understanding and knowledge reflected in
`
`the prior art, would have been motivated to make the combination of elements
`
`recited in the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or
`
`any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention,
`
`can provide a reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art references.
`
`VII. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
`
`30. Section VII(A) provides an overview of the battery charging circuit
`
`technology that is the focus of the ’591 patent. The disclosure of the ’591 patent is
`
`discussed in Section VII(B).
`
`
`
`17
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`A. BACKGROUND ON BATTERY CHARGE CONTROLLER TECHNOLOGY
`
`31. By the time of the alleged invention, battery-charging circuits were
`
`well known as key components of portable devices such as laptop computers, cell
`
`phones, and personal digital assistants. The following is a general overview of
`
`conventional battery charging technology at the time to provide context for the
`
`subsequent discussion of the ’591 patent and the asserted prior art. As depicted in
`
`the first figure below, a generalized battery charging circuit receives current from
`
`an external source of power, and converts this power to a voltage and current at the
`
`battery terminals. The second figure below shows a typical battery charging circuit
`
`internal to a portable device powered by an external DC source, either the output of
`
`an AC adapter (which converts AC line voltage to a DC voltage), or DC power
`
`from a computer data bus (such as USB). These external sources may supply
`
`power to other loads within a portable device, in addition to the battery charging
`
`circuitry itself.
`
`Conceptual two-port model of a battery charger
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`Battery Charging Circuitry In a Portable Device
`
`
`
`32. A block diagram of battery charging circuitry is shown in more detail
`
`below. One type of conventional charging system includes a regulation
`
`mechanism either (1) under constant-current control or (2) under constant-voltage
`
`cont