Patent Owner’s Hearing Demonstratives
`IPR2018-01283 & IPR2018-01452
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,834,591
`December 13, 2019
`
`1
`
`
`IPR2018-01283 & IPR2018-01452
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,834,591
`December 13, 2019
`
`1
`
`
`
`’591 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`1283 POR, 7-16
`1452 POR, 7-15
`
`2
`
`
`
`’591 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`1283 POR, 4-6, 37-38, 51-55; Sur-Reply, 19-21
`1452 POR, 4-6, 41-43, 50-54; Sur-Reply, 12-14
`
`The ideal charging source for Li-Ion is a current-limited
`constant voltage source (sometimes called constant-current,
`constant-voltage, or CC-CV). A constant current is applied to
`the cell until the cell voltage reaches the final battery voltage.
`. . . At this point, the charger switches from constant-current
`to constant-voltage, and the charge current gradually drops.
`
`Kester (EX1007), 5.8
`A. And a person of ordinary skill would understand
`that a CCCV profile, as we've looked at it, as
`we've looked at it previously in these previous
`depictions, is sort of ideal, but can change in
`practice in an actual circuit depending on other
`conditions in the circuit.
`
`Dep. of Dr. Phinney (EX2006), 45:18-24;
`see also 54:5-8, 38:25-39:23, 61:13-62:5, 59:2-25
`(describing body of disclosed art using CC-CV charging)
`
`3
`
`Denning (EX1010), Fig. 1A (annotated); Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶36-37
`
`
`
`’591 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`1283 POR, 4-10
`1452 POR, 4-9
`
`Denning (EX1010), Fig. 1A (annotated); Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶36-37
`
`’591 Pat. (EX1001), Fig. 10A (annotated), 8:17-27, 19:24-23;
`see also Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶42-43
`
`4
`
`
`
`’591 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`1283 POR, 4-10
`1452 POR, 4-9
`
`’591 Pat., Claim 1; Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶42-43;
`see also EX 2007, ¶53-57 (summarizing prosecution history)
`
`’591 Pat. (EX1001), Fig. 10A (annotated), 8:17-27, 19:24-23;
`see also Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶42-43
`
`5
`
`
`
`’591 Patent | Deficiencies in the 1283 Petition
`1283 Petition (Bell + Kester)
`
`1283 POR, 1-3, 40-42
`
`[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.
`
`’591 Pat. (EX1001), Cl. 1
`
`Corresponding Limitations in
`Independent Claims 8 and 32
`
`• Bell does not reduce charging current as
`a voltage on the battery increases
`
`• No evidence a POSITA would use Bell’s
`circuit to perform [1f] (“stepping up
`current”)
`
`• No evidence a POSITA would abandon
`CC-CV to perform both [1f] and [1g]
`
`6
`
`
`
`’591 Patent | Deficiencies in the 1452 Petition
`1452 Petition (Bell + Kester + Gong)
`
`1452 POR, 1-4, 44-45
`
`[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.
`
`’591 Pat. (EX1001), Cl. 1
`
`Corresponding Limitations in
`Independent Claims 8 and 32
`
`•
`
`In addition to the above, the Bell-Gong
`circuit is inoperable
`• No motivation to combine Bell with Gong
`– Combination sidelines fundamental
`aspects of Bell
`– Combination creates redundant
`power control mechanisms
`– Combination breaks Bell’s circuit,
`teaching away from combination
`
`7
`
`
`
`’591 Patent | Deficiencies in the Petitions
`
`1283 POR, 9-11, 55-58
`1452 POR, 7-11, 54-58
`
`[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.
`
`’591 Pat. (EX1001), Cl. 1
`
`The ‘as a whole’ instruction in title 35 prevents
`evaluation of the invention part by part. Without this
`important requirement, an obviousness assessment
`might successfully break an invention into its
`component parts,
`then find a prior art reference
`corresponding to each component. This line of
`reasoning would
`import
`hindsight
`into
`the
`obviousness determination by using the invention as
`a roadmap to find its prior art components.
`
`Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1337
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted)
`’591 Pat. (EX1001), Fig. 10A (annotated); Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶42-43
`
`8
`
`
`
`’591 Patent | Deficiencies in the Petitions
`
`1283 POR, 11-13
`1452 POR, 11-12
`
`’591 File History (EX1002), Jan. 8, 2009
`OA Response, 110
`
`’591 File History (EX1002), Jan. 8, 2009
`OA Response, 110
`
`’591 File History (EX1002), Jul. 9, 2009
`OA Response, 48
`
`9
`
`
`
`’591 Patent | Deficiencies in the Petitions
`
`1283 POR, 13-15
`1452 POR, 12-15
`
`’591 File History (EX1002), Dec. 10, 2009 OA, 25;
`See also id., 24
`
`’591 File History (EX1002), Apr. 12, 2010 OA Response, 19
`
`10
`
`
`
`’591 Patent | Deficiencies in the Petitions
`
`1283 POR, 8, 20-22, 43-45
`1452 POR, 7-8, 19-21
`
`[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.
`
`’591 Pat. (EX1001), Cl. 1
`
`Bell (EX1005), Fig. 2C
`
`’591 Pat. (EX1001), Fig. 10A (annotated);
`Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶42-43
`
`11
`
`
`
`’591 Patent | Deficiencies in the Petitions
`
`1452 POR, 32-37
`
`Gong (EX1008), Fig. 4
`
`12
`
`
`
`Claim Construction | “as a voltage on the battery increases”
`
`1283 POR, 16-19; Sur-Reply, 1-4
`1452 POR, 15-18; Sur-Reply 1-3
`
`[1g]: “the filtered current is reduced, in a current
`control mode, as a voltage on the battery increases.”
`
`[8g]: “wherein the first output current is reduced, in a
`current control mode, as the first output voltage on
`the battery increases.”
`
`[32i]: “wherein, during at least a portion of the current
`control mode, . . . the current controller reduces the
`output current to the battery as the voltage on the
`battery increases.”
`
`“as a voltage on the battery
`increases”
`=
`in response to a sensed increase in
`battery voltage
`
`•
`•
`
`Construction necessary to resolve Petitioner’s neglect of the ’591 specification
`Patent Owner’s construction is the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`– Consistent with ’591 Patent
`– Petitioner relies on attorney argument & Patent Owner’s expert testimony is unrebutted
`– Petitioner’s claim interpretation violates rule against surplusage
`
`13
`
`
`
`Claim Construction | “as a voltage on the battery increases” 1283 POR, 42-43; Sur-Reply, 1-2, 5, 7-8
`
`1452 Sur-Reply, 1-2
`
`“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy.”
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`
`“Bell . . . does not explicitly state that filtered output current to the battery is
`reduced as a voltage on the battery increases. . . . Briefly, battery charging causes
`battery voltage to increase . . . so when increasing battery voltage increases power
`demand beyond the limits of the power source, it is obvious to decrease power
`demand by reducing the charging current.”
`
`1283 Pet., 37-38
`the charging current
`“the independent claims of the ’591 patent require that
`decreases because it is controlled, e.g., actively caused or commanded, to do so (in a
`‘current control mode’). It is not sufficient that the charging current decreases
`incidentally . . . .”
`
`Phinney Decl. (EX1003), ¶74
`
`14
`
`
`
`Claim Construction | “as a voltage on the battery increases”
`
`1283 Sur-Reply, 4-8, 11-12
`1452 Sur-Reply, 4-5
`
`•
`
`Petitioner misrepresents Patent
`Owner’s construction
`– Sensed input current
`embodiment is not “read out”
`– Petitioner cites no authority that
`independent claims must be
`limited to all disclosed
`embodiments or none
`– Construction in litigation is
`consistent and pre-dates notice of
`filing of the Petitions
`
`1283 Reply, 4
`
`15
`
`
`
`Claim Construction | “as a voltage on the battery increases”
`
`1283 POR, 17-18; Sur-Reply 2-4
`1452 POR, 16-17; Sur-Reply 2-3
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner’s construction is the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`– Consistent with ’591 Patent
`
`’591 Pat. (EX1001), 1:67-2:3, 19:45-47
`
`16
`
`
`
`Claim Construction | “as a voltage on the battery increases”
`
`1283 Sur-Reply, 3
`1452 Sur-Reply, 3
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner’s construction is the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`– Consistent with ’591 Patent
`
`’591 Pat. (EX1001), Cls. 32, 44
`
`17
`
`
`
`Claim Construction | “as a voltage on the battery increases”
`
`1283 POR, 17-19; Sur-Reply, 2, 12
`1452 POR, 16-18; Sur-Reply, 2, 6
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner’s construction is the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`– Petitioner relies on attorney argument & Patent Owner’s expert testimony is unrebutted
`“A POSITA would therefore understand ‘as the voltage on the battery increases’ to mean ‘in
`response to a sensed increase in battery voltage.’ This would be the case to allow causation
`to exist between the sensed battery voltage and the charging current using measured values.
`A mere correlation would not be meaningful, as the voltage at the battery terminals always
`increases with the progression of charging.”
`
`Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶64
`Q. Okay. Dr. Phinney, did you provide any opinions in your second declaration, 1056, regarding claim
`construction of the phrase "as a battery on the voltage increases"?
`A. No.
`Q. Okay. Were you -- and you didn't provide any opinions on that phrase in your opening declaration
`either. Correct?
`A. No. Other than I applied the plain and ordinary meaning.
`Second Deposition of Dr. Phinney (EX2010), 134:3-13
`
`18
`
`
`
`Claim Construction | “as a voltage on the battery increases”
`
`1283 POR, 18-19; Sur-Reply, 2-3
`1452 POR, 17-18; Sur-Reply, 2
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner’s construction is the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`– Petitioner’s claim interpretation violates rule against surplusage
`
`Briefly, battery charging causes battery voltage to increase. The power expended in battery charging is
`proportional to the charging voltage, so increasing voltage also increases the amount of power required
`to maintain the present level of charging current to the battery. A power source, such as a USB port,
`can only supply a limited amount of power, so when increasing battery voltage increases power
`demand beyond the limits of the power source, it is obvious to decrease power demand by reducing the
`charging current.”
`
`1283 Pet., 38
`“A POSITA would therefore understand ‘as the voltage on the battery increases’ to mean ‘in
`response to a sensed increase in battery voltage.’ This would be the case to allow causation
`to exist between the sensed battery voltage and the charging current using measured values.
`A mere correlation would not be meaningful, as the voltage at the battery terminals always
`increases with the progression of charging.”
`
`Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶64
`
`19
`
`
`
`Claim Construction | Mischaracterization of Dr. Lall’s Testimony
`
`1283 Sur-Reply, 8-9
`
`Q.
`
`1283 Reply, 6
`
`A.
`
`So when the -- in the hypothetical we've
`been describing, when battery charging is
`terminating, it's your opinion that that would
`not
`satisfy
`the
`final
`element
`of
`the
`independent claims wherein current,
`in a
`current control mode, current to the battery is
`reducing in response to increased voltage on
`the battery?
`
`So the way the lithium ion circuit works, at
`the end of the charging cycle, the controller
`would be in voltage control mode, not
`in
`current control mode. And because the
`reduction in current in the '591 is mentioned
`in current control mode,
`that
`is not
`the
`reduction that the patent talks about.
`
`Deposition of Dr. Lall (EX1052), 113:18-114:10
`
`20
`
`
`
`Claim Construction | Mischaracterization of Dr. Lall’s Testimony
`
`1283 Sur-Reply, 11-12
`
`1283 Reply, 10
`
`Q. Okay. So you didn't consider whether a
`second embodiment was incorporated
`into the claims?
`
`think I’ve considered the
`I
`A. Well,
`second embodiment. Of course,
`I've
`described it to you in enough amount
`of detail that I would have considered
`it. But what I'm trying to tell you is it's
`not a part of my scope of my
`assignment where I would have been
`asked whether certain embodiments
`and what claims do they correspond
`to. That's not a mapping I have done.
`
`A. So I think all the varying clauses in claims 1, 8, and 32 talk about
`reduction in the -- in the output current as the voltage on the
`battery increases, but they also talk about an -- an output current
`to the battery that’s larger than the input current to the switching
`regulator. And the input current to the switching regulator is the
`I_in that you're talking about -- that you're mentioning, correct?
`So if that is the I_in, then clearly that's a part of the -- that's a
`part of the circuit.
`
`Q. So, yes, all the independent claims cover the embodiment in the
`specification where output current is reduced based on sensed
`input current?
`
`A.
`
`I think I said based on increase in battery voltage.
`
`Deposition of Dr. Lall (EX1052), 96:8-20
`
`Deposition of Dr. Lall (EX1052), 88:12-89:15
`
`21
`
`
`
`Claim Construction | Mischaracterization of Dr. Lall’s Testimony
`
`1283 Sur-Reply, 11-12
`
`Cited testimony drew 12 objections to poorly
`worded questions until the following exchange
`See EX1052, 80:21-90:5
`
`1283 Reply, 10
`
`Deposition of Dr. Lall (EX1052), 113:18-114:10
`
`22
`
`
`
`Bell (EX1005) | Power Management ≠ Battery Charging Profile
`
`1283 POR, 19-23, 44-45
`1452 POR, 19-22
`
`Bell (EX1005), Fig. 2C
`
`Bell (EX1005), 4:67-5:4
`
`23
`
`
`
`Bell (EX1005) | Power Management ≠ Battery Charging Profile
`
`1283 POR, 23, 31-33
`1452 POR, 22, 30-32, 70-71
`
`Phinney Decl. (EX 1003), ¶127; see also Lall Decl. (EX2007), 176
`
`Phinney Decl. (EX1003), ¶223; see also 1452 Pet. 39-40
`
`24
`
`
`
`Bell (EX1005) | Power Management ≠ Battery Charging Profile
`
`1283 POR, 22-33; Sur-Reply, 22
`1452 POR, 19-32
`
`Power Management
`•
`Current Control = Constant Current
`–
`EX2007, ¶¶75-81; EX2010, 130:4-17
`Voltage Control = Constant Voltage
`–
`EX2007, ¶¶83-90; EX2010, 130:18-23
`Input Current Control = Power Limiting
`–
`EX2007, ¶¶91-93; EX2010, 38:17-25
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Bell (EX1005), Fig. 4B (annotated);
`see also Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶71-72
`
`25
`
`
`
`Bell (EX1005) | Power Management ≠ Battery Charging Profile1283 POR, 20, 31-33; Sur-Reply, 19-21
`
`1452 POR, 19, 30-32; Sur-Reply, 12-14
`
`• Voltage Control Loop &
`Output/Charging Current
`Control Loop implement
`CC-CV charging
`
`•
`
`Input Current Control
`Loop interrupts other
`two loops when system
`power demands require
`
`Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶67
`
`26
`
`
`
`Bell (EX1005) | Power Management ≠ Battery Charging Profile
`
`1283 POR, 31-33; Sur-Reply, 20
`1452 POR, 30-32; Sur-Reply, 13
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Isn't the point of the input current
`control loop to make sure that you
`don't exceed the power capability of
`the power supply when system
`demands fluctuate?
`
`It would depend on what you mean
`by, "system demands fluctuate," but
`I think that's a fair statement.
`EX2010, 39:1-7
`
`Bell (EX1005), Fig. 4B (annotated);
`see also Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶91-93
`
`27
`
`
`
`Bell (EX1005) | Input Current Control Loop
`
`1283 POR, 1, 21, 31-33, 45-46; Sur-Reply, 2, 16-17
`1452 POR, 1, 22, 30-32; Sur-Reply, 13-14
`
`Phinney Decl. (EX1003), ¶223
`
`Bell (EX1005), 6:34-51;
`see also Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶91-99
`
`28
`
`
`
`Bell (EX1005) | Power Management ≠ Battery Charging Profile
`
`1283 POR, 43-45
`1452 POR, 64-65
`
`Charging current reduction is in response to a sensed increase in
`input current (by entire system), not battery voltage
`
`Phinney Decl. (EX1003), ¶223
`
`Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶98
`
`29
`
`
`
`Kester (EX1007) | Power Management ≠ Battery Charging Profile
`
`1283 POR, 33-40
`1452 POR, 37-43
`
`Kester (EX1043), 1.1.
`
`• Relied on to argue stepping up
`current was obvious
`• BUT:
`– No charging circuit with a
`switching regulator that steps
`up current
`– Relies on CC-CV charging
`– No disclosure of “current is
`reduced, in a current control
`mode, as a voltage on the
`battery increases.”
`
`Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶121
`
`30
`
`
`
`1283 Petition | Bell-Kester Combination
`
`1283 POR, 22-23, 42; Sur-Reply, 1-2
`1452 POR, 21-22; Sur-Reply, 1-2
`
`Petitioner relies entirely on Bell for elements [1g], [8g], and [32i]
`No reduction of charging current in a current control mode “as a
`voltage on the battery increases”
`
`“Bell . . . does not explicitly state that filtered output current to the battery is reduced as a
`voltage on the battery increases. . . . Briefly, battery charging causes battery voltage to
`increase . . . so when increasing battery voltage increases power demand beyond the limits
`of the power source, it is obvious to decrease power demand by reducing the charging
`current.”
`
`1283 Pet., 37-38;
`see also Phinney Decl. (EX1003), ¶226
`
`31
`
`
`
`1283 Petition | Bell-Kester Combination
`
`1283 POR, 20-22, 43-45
`1452 POR, 20-21, 65
`
`Petitioner’s evidence of [1g], [8g], and [32i] is that Bell
`merely does not preclude the behavior
`
`Bell (EX1005), Fig. 2C; see also 1283 POR 20-22; 1452 POR 20-21
`
`Bell (EX1005), 4:67-5:4
`
`Phinney Dep. (EX2006), 116:18-117:10;
`see also Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶130-131.
`
`32
`
`
`
`1283 Petition | Petitioner’s Expert Testimony Inconsistent
`
`1283 Sur-Reply, 21-22
`1452 Sur-Reply, 25-26
`
`EX2010, 38:19-25
`Q. The input current
`control loop can
`completely stop
`battery charging.
`Correct?
`
`A. That would be a really
`odd type of behavior,
`and not one that I'd
`expect from an input
`current control loop
`that was designed to
`maintain a limit on
`power.
`
`A.
`
`EX2010, 147:19-148:6
`Q.
`[C]an the input current
`control loop cause the
`battery to stop charging?
`I think it could. That would
`be an instance where, for
`instance, if the device
`circuitry were consuming all
`available power, that could
`be a case where there's no
`power available for charging
`the battery so the input
`current control loop could
`ultimately, you know, cause
`the battery charging current
`to decrease to zero.
`
`1283 Sur-Reply, 22;
`1452 Sur-Reply, 26
`
`33
`
`
`
`1283 Sur-Reply, 14-15, 18-19
`1452 Sur-Reply, 7-8
`
`1283 Petition | Petitioner’s Expert Testimony Inconsistent
`EX2010, 44:20-45:10
`EX1056, ¶6
`Q. Is it your opinion that in Bell’s circuit --
`The fact that the output current “may take a range
`that if all available power is going to
`of values” (Ex.2007, ¶138) does not mean that
`battery charging, that charging current
`output current can be less than input current as Dr.
`Lall asserts. Input current is not fixed across the
`will decrease as the battery voltage
`range of a regulator’s output.
`increases?
`A. If the input current control loop is in
`regulation, I'd agree with that, yes.
`Q. Okay. And in that situation, the input
`current would remain constant while
`the battery charging current is
`decreasing?
`A. Yes.
`Q. So in that situation, is it fair to say
`that the battery charging current could
`have a range of values?
`A. Yeah, I think I see what you mean.
`
`1283 Sur-Reply, 15;
`1452 Sur-Reply, 8
`
`34
`
`
`
`1283 Petition | Bell-Kester Combination
`
`1283 POR, 2-3, 40-41; Sur-Reply, 13-16, 19-21
`1452 POR, 2-3, 44-46, 63; Sur-Reply, 6-9, 12-14
`
`“differences between the prior art and the claims
`at issue are to be ascertained.”
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966)
`
`Prior art is further from ’591 Patent than Petitions suggest
`- Insufficient evidence of obviousness that:
`• POSITA would use Bell’s circuit to step up current
`• POSITA would use Bell to depart from CC-CV
`
`35
`
`
`
`1283 Petition | Bell-Kester Combination
`
`1283 Sur-Reply, 13-16
`1452 Sur-Reply, 6-9
`
`Insufficient evidence a POSITA would use Bell’s circuit to step up current merely
`because Kester discloses stepping up current as one mode of a switching regulator
`
`Q.
`
`Is the output current of a switching regulator always greater than the input current?
`
`A. It would depend on the type of switching regulator.
`First Deposition of Dr. Phinney (EX2006), 64:23-65:5
`
`Q.
`
`Is it your opinion, Dr. Phinney, that buck regulators always output more current than is
`received at the input of the buck regulator?
`
`A. Not necessarily always but that relationship would be typical and obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill.
`Second Deposition of Dr. Phinney (EX2010), 42:25-43:6
`
`36
`
`
`
`1283 Petition | Bell-Kester Combination
`
`1283 POR, 38-40, 51-58; Sur-Reply, 20-21
`1452 POR, 41-43, 50-58, 71-72; Sur-Reply, 13-14
`
`POSITA would not use Bell to depart from CC-CV
`
`The ideal charging source for Li-Ion is a current-limited constant
`voltage source (sometimes called constant-current, constant-voltage, or
`CC-CV). A constant current is applied to the cell until the cell voltage
`reaches the final battery voltage. . . . At this point, the charger switches
`from constant-current to constant-voltage, and the charge current
`gradually drops.
`
`Kester (EX1007), 5.8
`
`A. And a person of ordinary skill would understand
`that a CCCV profile, as we've looked at it, as
`we've looked at it previously in these previous
`depictions, is sort of ideal, but can change in
`practice in an actual circuit depending on other
`conditions in the circuit.
`
`Dep. of Dr. Phinney (EX2006), 45:18-24;
`see also id., 54:5-8, 38:25-39:23, 61:13-62:5, 59:2-25
`(describing body of disclosed art using CC-CV charging)
`
`37
`
`Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶143
`see also Second Deposition of Dr. Phinney (EX2010), 38:17-25, 130:4-23
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`
`1452 POR, 1-4, 44-45; Sur-Reply, 6-20
`
`• Gong does not cure defects of Bell-Kester in the 1283 Petition
`– Insufficient evidence that the combination steps up current
`– Still no motivation to depart from CC-CV charging
`• Bell-Gong circuit cannot determine available power for charging
`• No motivation to shelve Bell’s feedback loops to implement Gong
`• No motivation to implement redundant power control techniques
`• Bell-Gong circuit is inoperable and unpredictable
`
`38
`
`
`
`Gong | Overview
`
`1452 POR, 32-37
`
`Petitioner relies primarily on Gong’s Figure 4
`•
`No disclosure of a particular battery charging profile
`•
`Never mentions switching regulators or stepping up current
`•
`Power curve 402 moves up or down as system power demands fluctuate
`•
`Curve 402 is power available for charging
`
`Gong (EX1008), 6:29-32
`
`Gong (EX1008), Fig. 4
`
`Gong (EX1008), 3:20-23
`
`39
`
`
`
`Gong | Overview
`
`1452 POR, 32-37, 58-59; Sur-Reply, 9-12, 18-20
`
`Gong keeps product of commanded charging current
`and sensed battery voltage below curve 402 so
`“computing device is not starved for power”
`•
`This mechanism is broken in Bell-Gong circuit
`•
`Charging current is adjusted by two loops outside
`of the microprocessor’s control
`
`Gong (EX1008), Fig. 1 (annotated); Lall Decl., ¶112
`
`Gong (EX1008), 4:15-30
`
`40
`
`
`
`Gong | Overview
`
`1452 POR, 32-37, 58-59; Sur-Reply, 9-12, 18-20
`
`Gong keeps product of commanded charging current
`and sensed battery voltage below curve 402 so
`“computing device is not starved for power”
`•
`This mechanism is broken in Bell-Gong circuit
`•
`Charging current is adjusted by two loops outside
`of the microprocessor’s control
`
`Gong (EX1008), Fig. 1 (annotated); Lall Decl., ¶112
`
`Gong (EX1008), 4:47-57
`
`41
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`
`1452 POR, 32-37, 58-59; Sur-Reply, 9-12
`
`Bell-Gong circuit cannot determine power available for charging
`•
`Battery monitor cannot sense charging current
`• Microprocessor only aware of its own commands to Bell’s
`output current control loop
`
`1452 Pet., 23
`Q. Sitting here right now, you’re not able to find where the modified Bell-Gong circuit senses the battery
`charging current?
`
`A. Right. I haven't found that yet.
`
`Second Deposition of Dr. Phinney (EX2010), 112:22-25
`42
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`
`1452 POR, 32-37, 58-59; Sur-Reply, 9-12, 18-20
`
`Bell-Gong circuit cannot determine power available for charging
`•
`Battery monitor cannot sense charging current
`• Microprocessor only aware of its own commands to Bell’s
`output current control loop
`
`Q.
`
`If the current DAC is commanding a value to the PROG
`pin that is based on an output current limit to perform
`the stair step behavior, how is that same current DAC
`also communicating a voltage limit and the input
`current limit?
`
`A. The short answer is that it doesn't.
`
`Second Deposition of Dr. Phinney, (EX2010), 168:12-169:2
`
`43
`
`1452 Pet., 18
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`
`1452 POR, 64-65; Sur-Reply, 14-15, 25-26
`
`No Motivation to Replace Bell’s Three Modes with One Mode
`from Gong
`
`1452 Reply, 18
`
`Q. So in Bell's circuit, you’ve talked about the input current control loop being a thumb on
`the scale. The input current control loop can completely stop battery charging. Correct?
`
`A. That would be a really odd type of behavior, and not one that I'd expect from an input
`current control loop that was designed to maintain a limit on power.
`
`Second Deposition of Dr. Phinney (EX2010), 38:17-25
`
`44
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`
`1452 POR, 64-65; Sur-Reply, 14-15
`
`No Motivation to Replace Bell’s Three Modes with One Mode
`from Gong
`
`1452 Reply, 15
`
`1452 Reply, 18
`
`45
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`
`1452 POR, 45, 65-71; Sur-Reply, 15-18
`
`No Motivation for Redundant Power Control Mechanisms
`1.
`Bell’s Input Current Control Loop to Limit Battery Charging Power
`2.
`Gong’s Power Management Microprocessor to Limit Battery Charging Power
`
`Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶166-167
`
`46
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`
`1452 Sur-Reply, 15-18
`
`Purported (and Untimely) Motivation in Reply is Meaningless
`
`1452 Reply, 19; see also Phinney Second Decl. (EX1056), ¶42
`
`Phinney Second Decl. (EX1056), ¶41
`
`47
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`
`1452 Sur-Reply, 15-18
`
`Purported (and Untimely) Motivation in Reply is Meaningless
`
`Q. Where in Bell does it say there’s a risk of one of the three control loops failing?
`
`A.
`
`I don't believe it discusses that.
`
`Second Deposition of Dr. Phinney (EX2010), 83:10-13
`Q. Where in Gong does it say that there's a risk that the control techniques described in Gong failing
`such that a backup system is necessary?
`
`A.
`
`I have to look.
`
`Q. Okay.
`
`A. (Document review.) Yeah, I'm not aware of a passage like that sitting here.
`Second Deposition of Dr. Phinney (EX2010), 77:19-78:2
`
`48
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`No Motivation to Sideline Bell’s Central Feature
`No Mechanism for Cooperation of Both Power Control Schemes
`
`1452 POR 64-65; Sur-Reply, 14-15
`
`Phinney Decl. (EX 1003), ¶127; see also Lall Decl. (EX2007), 176
`
`1452 Reply, 18
`
`49
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`Bell-Gong Circuit is Inoperable and Unpredictable
`“If references taken in combination would produce a ‘seemingly inoperative
`device,’ . . . such references teach away from the combination and thus cannot
`serve as predicates for a prima facie case of obviousness.”
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339,
`1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted)
`
`1452 POR, 71-78; Sur-Reply, 18-20
`
`Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶178
`
`50
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`Bell-Gong Circuit is Inoperable and Unpredictable
`All 3 Control Loops Depend on Load at PROG Pin (Node 92)
`
`1452 POR, 71-78; Sur-Reply, 18-20
`
`Phinney Second Decl. (EX1056), ¶27
`
`Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶184
`
`51
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`Bell-Gong Circuit is Inoperable and Unpredictable
`All 3 Control Loops Depend on Load at PROG Pin
`
`1452 POR, 71-78; Sur-Reply, 18-20
`
`Phinney Second Decl. (EX1056), ¶47
`
`Bell (EX1005), 7:62-67
`
`Bell (EX1005), Fig. 4B (annotated);
`see also Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶71-72
`
`52
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`Bell-Gong Circuit is Inoperable and Unpredictable
`Bell-Gong Circuit’s Load at PROG Pin Not Fixed
`Bell (Unmodified)
`Bell-Gong Circuit
`
`1452 POR, 71-78; Sur-Reply, 18-20
`
`Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶184-185
`
`53
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`Bell-Gong Circuit is Inoperable and Unpredictable
`PROG Pin Load Only Adjusted for Output Current Control Loop
`
`1452 POR, 71-78; Sur-Reply, 18-20
`
`Q. If the current DAC is commanding a value to
`the PROG pin that is based on an output
`current limit to perform the stair step
`behavior, how is that same current DAC also
`communicating a voltage limit and the input
`current limit?
`
`A. The short answer is that it doesn't.
`
`Second Deposition of Dr. Phinney (EX2010), 168:12-169:2
`
`54
`
`Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶182
`
`
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`New Reply Evidence of Current Sinking DACs Does Not Cure Petition
`• No Motivation to Use Current Sinking DACs – EXS1063-1065 Not for Battery Charging
`•
`Current Sinking DACs include additional components never disclosed in combination
`
`1452 Sur-Reply, 21-25
`
`1452 Sur-Reply, 23;
`see also EX1063, 1, 12
`
`1452 Sur-Reply, 24;
`see also EX1064, 16
`
`55
`
`
`
`1452 Sur-Reply, 21-25
`
`1452 Petition | Bell-Kester-Gong Combination
`New Reply Evidence of Current Sinking DACs Does Not Cure Petition
`•
`Expert Testimony Inconsistent with Current Sinking DAC Disclosures
`•
`Load not defined
`Figure 22 shows a simplified schematic of the current
`sink
`array
`output with
`corresponding
`switches.
`Differential NPN switches direct the current of each
`individual NPN current sink to either the positive output
`node IOUT1 or its complementary negative output node
`IOUT2. D[13:0] controls the S(N)C current switches and
`D[13:0] controls the S(N) current switches, as explained
`in the previous DAC Transfer Function section (see Figure
`21). The output impedance is determined by the stack of
`the current sinks and differential switches, and is > 300kΩ
`in parallel with an output capacitance of 5pF.
`
`EX1064, 16
`1452 Sur-Reply, 24; see also EX1064, 16
`So what impact do Gong’s microprocessor and DAC have on the voltage at node 92, if any?
`Q.
`A. So by drawing a current from that node -- to draw a current you present a small incremental impedance at the PROG
`pin through a real-world current source that could be, for instance, a -- looking into the collector of a transistor, for
`instance, that will load node92 to generate the error …
`EX2010, 96:17-97:8
`56
`
`
`
`1283 & 1452 Petitions | Rely on Hindsight Bias
`
`1283 POR, 1, 9-11, 55-58
`1452 POR, 1, 7-11, 54-58, 65
`
`[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.
`
`’591 Pat. (EX1001), Cl. 1
`
`The ‘as a whole’ instruction in title 35 prevents
`evaluation of the invention part by part. Without this
`important requirement, an obviousness assessment
`might successfully break an invention into its
`component parts,
`then find a prior art reference
`corresponding to each component. This line of
`reasoning would
`import
`hindsight
`into
`the
`obviousness determination by using the invention as
`a roadmap to find its prior art components.
`
`Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1337
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted)
`
`’591 Pat. (EX1001), Fig. 10A (annotated);
`Lall Decl. (EX2007), ¶¶42-43
`
`57
`
`
`
`Motions to Exclude | EXS1019, 1054, 1062-1065 Should be Excluded
`• Unauthenticated (FRE 901) & Not Relevant (FRE 401-403)
`
`IPR2018-01283, Pr. 32
`IPR2018-01452, Pr. 33
`
`•
`
`•
`
`EX1054 Supports Petitioner’s Claim Construction Arguments
`
`EXS1019, 1062-1065 Support New Arguments regarding Current Output DACs
`that Sink Current
`– EX1019 – Cited in 1452 Reply (at 24) and EX1056, ¶19
`– EX1062-1065 – Cited in EX1056, ¶18
`– ¶¶18-19 of EX1056 Cited Directly in Reply
`
`58
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
