Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`_____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: December 13, 2019
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`_____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: December 13, 2019
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`EAGLE ROBINSON, ESQ.
`TALBOT HANSUM, ESQ.
`Norton Rose Fulbright US, LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard
`Suite 1100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512) 474-5201
`eagle.robinson@nortonrosefulbright.com
`talbot.hansum@nortonrosefullbright.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`NICHOLAS A. JEPSEN, ESQ.
`W. KARL RENNER, ESQ.
`THOMAS ROZYLOWICZ, ESQ.
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue, SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`(202) 626-6447 (Renner)
`renner@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, December
`
`13, 2019, commencing at 1:00 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`(1:00 p.m.)
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: You can be seated. before we go on the
`record, I'm just letting the parties know we have a training situation going on
`here shadowing us today. So there will be one more person in front of you
`than normal.
`So good afternoon. This is a trial in Hearing IPR 2018-01283 and
`2018-01452 concerning Patent No. 7834591. Apple Inc. is Petitioner in the
`case and Patent Owner is Qualcomm. I'm going to have the counsel
`introduce yourselves at the lectern and identify anyone in the room who is
`with you today. And we'll start with Petitioner.
`MR. RENNER: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Karl Renner for
`Apple, Petitioner. Joined by Nick Jepsen and Tom Rozylowicz. And may
`I approach with a copy of the demonstratives?
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: You certainly can.
`(off the record comments)
`MR. ROBINSON: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Eagle
`Robinson for Patent Owner. With me at counsel table is Mr. Talbot
`Hansum and Mr. Bert Patella (phonetic) representative for Qualcomm.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Welcome. Before we begin, obviously
`remind the parties that the hearing is open to the public and transcript will be
`made of record. As mentioned from my trial order that each party has 60
`minutes to present its argument in each case. After both cases, we will
`allow some time. Obviously there's a lot of material to cover. Petitioner
`has the burden to show patentability and Patent Owner can respond. Both
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`parties are allowed to have rebuttal time. So at this time -- I'll have you
`start at the beginning of your presentation and tell us how much you time
`want to reserve. And I'll do my best to keep track of the time here,
`although the clock was not behaving properly when I was working with it
`earlier. So we'll see if -- I'll let you know if I end up doing it manually.
`Obviously for clarity of the transcript and for my colleagues, Judges
`Galligan and Howard who have joined us remotely, please refer to exhibit
`number and slide number. It helps them follow along if they can't see the
`screen here in the room. We have very experienced counsel, so obviously
`demonstratives are not evidence. But you can address each others
`demonstrative as needed. We will continue straight through without a
`break. And I would remind you just let me know what time you're going to
`reserve.
`And I do want to -- at least I'll start off by saying if it doesn't come
`up in your presentation, I might have a few questions about our motions to
`exclude that we can wrap up at the end. Okay? And with that, Petitioner,
`you may begin when you're ready.
`MR. JEPSEN: Good afternoon. I would like to reserve 25
`minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay.
`MR. JEPSEN: Slide 2 please. Today Petitioner is going to be
`discussing four major topics. The first is Item 1.0, the construction of as a
`voltage on the battery increases. Item 2.0, charging current greater than
`input current to switching regulator. Item 3.0, feature reducing battery
`charging current in a current control mode as the voltage on the battery
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`increases. And 4.0, an explanation of why Bell, Kester, and Gong are
`properly combined.
`Slide 7 please. I'll just note that only Ground 1A of the 1283
`proceeding is contested. And so that's the only one I'll discuss today.
`Slide 8 please. Similarly in the 1452 Petition, only Ground 2A is contested
`and so I'll be discussing that.
`Slide 9 please. So as an initial matter, the construction of the
`phrase "as the voltage on the battery increases" is disputed by the parties.
`Qualcomm in the preliminary Patent Owner response indicated that plain
`and binary meaning should be used. However, Qualcomm has advanced a
`different view later in the proceeding.
`Slide 11 please. To the left is the Claim 1 of the 591 Patent
`showing the highlighted portion at the bottom with the phrase in question,
`"as the voltage on the battery increases." And Qualcomm's position on the
`right is that phrase means in response to a sensed increase in battery voltage.
`However, looking back at the patent, there is no mention of sensing an
`increase. There's nothing in the claim that requires a response to a sensed
`increase. Qualcomm could have chosen to amend the claims. To require
`the features and the new construction, but they chose not to.
`Slide 12. This new construction by Qualcomm creates a number of
`problems here. And I'll just briefly note as in the slide, this construction
`does not meet BRS Standard. It violates the claim differentiation doctrine.
`It imports a single embodiment into the claims. That's the embodiment that
`directly senses battery voltage. And last of all, it reads the sensed input
`current embodiment out of the claims. So why would Qualcomm try so
`hard to exclude one of its own embodiments that senses input current? It's
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`because the Bell prior art that we'll discuss today is doing exactly that. It's
`sensing input current and reducing charging current in response.
`Qualcomm's construction is wrong. And the Board should reject it.
`Moving to Slide 15. Even if the Board were to accept Qualcomm's
`flawed construction, the Bell and Kester combination still satisfies the
`claims. And a key to this is in the upper right-hand corner showing a quote
`from the 591 Patent itself. And I'll read that. "The switching regulator may
`detect the rise in the battery voltage by sensing either the battery voltage
`directly, the input current, or other related matters." And it's worth noting
`that there are three ways here that you can detect or sense this rise in battery
`voltage. And only one of which involves directly sensing battery voltage.
`Nevertheless, Qualcomm's construction is that direct sensing is required.
`That's not supported by the 591 Patent.
`In the Bell system, input current is sensed. Qualcomm may argue
`whether the input current is the regulator for charging alone or combination
`with other current. But the language in the 591 Patent is clear. Other
`related parameters are sufficient.
`Referring to Slide 17 now. The Bell, Kester, Gong combination
`also satisfies Qualcomm's improper construction. As we noted, the
`combination senses battery voltage Vb and reduces charging current based
`on the sense battery voltage Vb. And as shown on the right in Gong's
`figure, the very first step in determining a charge current is to read battery
`voltage Vb. And then in Step 906, to determine an efficient charge current
`based on the battery voltage. Clearly Gong teaches this same technique
`and meets even Qualcomm's construction. Slide 19 please.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Before you move on.
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`
`MR. JEPSEN: Yes, sir?
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Although the parties have sort of
`concentrated or shortened it to "as the voltage on the battery increases", the
`phrase is "It reduces in a current control mode as the voltage on the battery
`increases." Is current control mode a term of art or is it tied specifically to
`what is described in the specification as being the current control mode?
`And I'm going to preview what one of my issues is, is that I'm now curious
`as to how that matters when I look at the, vis-a-vis the prior art that was
`overcome in the prosecution with this constant current/constant voltage
`mode, how then that differs from what we are looking at today. I'm sort of
`curious as to, you know, is this current control mode common across the art
`or common across the industry and should we give some life to it in these
`claims?
`MR. JEPSEN: Good question. I'm not aware of any evidence in
`the record saying that this is a term of art that would be instantly
`recognizable. That said, the parties do not disagree on the key points here.
`Qualcomm has not required a specific construction, neither has petitioner.
`One of the key elements is control as mentioned in the phrase itself. And
`Apple's position from the beginning has been that control requires an act.
`It requires for example, an active step or a command to cause this to occur.
`Current is not like floating, it is controlled or limited and actively set at some
`point.
`
`Turning to Slide 19. I'll now turn to the first of two disputed
`features in the claims. And in this section, the discussion of Bell and
`Kester as it applies to switching regulators, applies to both proceedings since
`both use Bell's switching regulator. Slide 20 please. Bell makes very
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`clear that he's using a switching buck regulator. This is an extremely well
`known type of power converter. So well known that a person of ordinary
`skill would not need Bell to explain these basic properties including step-
`down and voltage and corresponding step-up of current. Now Bell doesn't
`explain this, but it doesn't need to explain how this decades-old power
`converter works.
`Slide 21 please. Qualcomm's going to argue that buck regulators
`don't perform this kind of step-up. Or at least they may argue that it's
`uncertain. For that very purpose, Apple included in its original petitions,
`very clear evidence from Kester, which is a basic design guide covering
`topics such as thermal management and power management. And on the
`third page of the section on switching regulators, Kester makes this explicit
`statement. The quote here -- in particular, the highlighted portion from
`Kester says that "In step-down buck designs, the input current is lower than
`the output current." There are no qualifications here. There are no
`reservations. Kester's not ambiguous on this point as Qualcomm would
`like Your Honors to believe. Importantly, Kester explains the reason for
`this in the sentence just above the highlighted portion. Kester states, "The
`conservation of energy applies so the input power equals the output power."
`And note even before that, it mentions the efficiencies can be quite high,
`generally greater than 80 to 90 percent. As a result of the voltage step-
`down with high efficiency in these regulators, a current increase occurs from
`input to output.
`Slide 22 please. As noted in the original petitions on the left of the
`slide, in the combination Bell's switching regulator would provide filtered
`output current that is greater than the input current. Dr. Phinney notes in
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`the upper right-hand corner, it is obvious from Bell's switching regulator to
`provide such an output current that is greater than the input current. But
`this is common, well known behavior of the buck regulator. In the note
`below, the relationship between the input current and output current is a
`fundamental property of buck regulators that would be known to a person of
`ordinary skill. In fact, Qualcomm does not dispute that in a continuous
`mode of operation, buck regulators do have this property.
`Slide 23 please.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: As I understand Qualcomm's argument and
`I'm sure they will give me the details of it, it's not that it's just -- that the
`petitioner assumes without actually explaining which mode it's operating in,
`that this buck step-down converter would operate in the mode that always or
`brings in. I'm not sure if we're talking about inherency or something that's
`so well known that it's common knowledge. But the argument is that in a
`discontinuous mode, there may be chances when the current is not stepped
`down.
`MR. JEPSEN: Thank you, Your Honor. Let me address that
`point. Go back to Slide 22 please. I'll note that Dr. Phinney explains it is
`obvious for regulators to operate in this way. This is not an inherency
`standard. This is an obviousness standard. It is possible to design a very
`poor buck regulator that doesn't do what it is designed to do. But as Kester
`noted, efficiencies are generally very high, 80 to 90 percent or higher.
`Notably Qualcomm gives no reason why a buck regulator, at least in
`continuous mode, would not provide this. And moving to Slide 23, it's
`telling that in the 591 Patent, it uses a buck regulator just like Bell does.
`Under the obviousness standard here, it is sufficient for the common and
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`obvious and typical design of a buck regulator to provide this property. It's
`obvious for that normally designed, well understood component to act as it's
`designed.
`And you're right, Your Honor, Qualcomm does take issue with the
`discontinuous mode. And I will address that now with reference to Slide
`25. First of all, Qualcomm has not provided any evidence to support their
`conjecture that discontinuous mode would not provide this kind of step-
`down. And further, that conjecture is wrong as we indicated in our reply in
`Phinney's declaration. This is a slide showing a figure from Kester. And
`on the left, there are two current sources annotated. The blue is switch
`current that is input current from a source. The red arrow shows current
`from a diode that is coming from a different portion. It's actually being
`pulled up from ground through diode. And it's not from input.
`On the right, Kester shows these different wave forms, individually
`and in combination as they form the outcome. The bottom in Inset D,
`shows the blue contribution of the switch input diode. Above that in Inset
`C, shows the red contribution of the diode current. And in Inset B, it shows
`that the output is the combination of the red and the blue. And so, the
`combination of input current, plus additional diode current must be greater
`than the input current alone. It's very easy to see that visually. It's also
`clear to see that in Inset B, I-Out, which is the average output current line is
`much higher than the input current line shown in Inset D. Notably after
`seeing these figures in Petitioner's documents, Qualcomm has backed away
`from this argument. And they did not emphasize it in their surreply.
`I'm going to move to Slide 27, which addresses the second dispute in
`claim feature, reducing battery charging current in a current control mode
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`as a voltage on the battery increases. Slide 29 please. It's important to
`understand how Bell operates to see how these limitations are met. I want
`to emphasize that in this figure showing Bell's 4B, on the right-hand side,
`there are three elements noted, which are pieces of different feedback
`controllers. From top to bottom, there is a charging current, feedback
`control loop that regulates output current to the battery. A charging voltage
`feedback control loop, which limits the maximum voltage to the battery.
`And an input current feedback control loop, which will regulate the input
`current so it does not exceed a maximum level.
`Note that Bell's system is designed for all of these three controllers
`to be operating concurrently. That doesn't mean that they are all regulating
`the output instantly. It means they are all watching for the respective
`conditions to occur. The charging current feedback control loop sets a
`target output level -- Let's say 1 amp. And the other two control loops can
`override that control if needed. So if the battery voltage reaches the limit,
`the voltage control feedback loop will override that current setting and
`decrease output. Similarly the input current feedback control loop, if it
`detects the current being drawn as too high, it will also override the output
`current feedback loop.
`Slide 30 please. As we noted in the petition, the input current
`feedback loop operates to keep input current within the limits of the power
`source. Bell was very explicit on this part. I'll refer you to the
`highlighted portion on the right. This input current feedback loop will
`operate to reduce the battery charging current. Thereby reducing the power
`drain of DC/DC Converter 32. And bringing current supply to Converter
`18.
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`
`The quote below is also important too. Note from the beginning, it
`says "Thus when the current, through a Resistor 50 is too high, the output of
`current sense Amplifier 54 will be high." Resulting in the highlighted
`portion to generate a control signal causing DC/DC converter to lower the
`charging current. That's important because the Resistor 50 is sensing not
`just system power demand as Qualcomm would like Your Honors to believe,
`but it's sensing the combination of charging power and system power. If
`either or both of those quantities would exceed the limit, the result is the
`same. Bell lowers the charging component. As Your Honors can see, this
`is also clearly a current control mode because lowering the charging current
`is an intentional active step taken by Bell 's circuitry.
`Slide 32 please.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Before you go on. Counsel, that's a -- are
`you characterizing that as a change in the current drawn from the power
`converter based on the overall power of the -- which is both the
`measurement of some battery voltage and current? Or is it one --
`disentangle that for me. Can it just be one? I mean because in terms of
`the claim, it's clearly -- I mean, the strongest form of the argument is that it
`has to be a direct measurement of the battery voltage. But let's say I buy
`that, why does that qualify for that ground, okay?
`MR. JEPSEN: And so I'd refer Your Honors back to the slide
`discussing how the 591 Patent describes the sensing.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: I understand if you're getting ready to say it
`can be both direct and indirect.
`MR. JEPSEN: Correct.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: I understand that quote.
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`
`MR. JEPSEN: Yes.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: But let's say for the moment I buy that it
`has to be a direct measurement of the battery voltage, at least as you
`described Bell here, it's clearly a power -- it's clearly a concern with overall
`power that then modifies the current. Power can be a measurement of both,
`voltage and current. So I'm trying to disentangle exactly what it's
`measuring or sensing, even if it's indirectly related. What is the
`measurement on it?
`MR. JEPSEN: All right, so the measurement is input current to
`Bell system --
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay.
`MR. JEPSEN: -- the overall current in Bell system.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Total input current?
`MR. JEPSEN: Yes. And a component of that is naturally the
`input current used by the regulator to charge the battery. And that is the
`link as you'll see in the following slides, how the system responds to
`battery charging -- the battery voltage during charging. There are just a
`few steps that show why this happens. So in Slide 32, Bell makes clear that
`it intends to maximize the amount of power used for charging. And so
`referring to just the highlighted portions of these Bell quotes, Bell's object is
`to maximize utilization of the power and the capacity. Also to best utilize a
`power converter's capacity. Many other quotes from Bell explain how it's
`intending to use as much power as possible and not leave power capacity
`unused and waste it.
`So in Slide 33, Bell illustrates this principle. The area in green,
`Box 15, is power used by the device circuitry. And you'll note that there's a
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`power limit at 30 watts in this example of Bell. And all of that area is filled
`in. There's no gap. The area under or not included in 15 is in yellow,
`Region 17. And that is power that can be used for charging. In a quote
`from Bell below describing this principle, Bell states "that Battery Charger
`20 may use any or all of the excess power." Now Qualcomm takes issue
`with this. Dr. Lall in particular says that all does not mean all. And yet
`fails to give any reasonable justification for that position. But Bell was
`explicit. Any or all excess power can be used for charging.
`Combine that with Bell's stated motivation to maximize usage of
`power. To not let power capacity be wasted. And we have a clear
`motivation in Bell -- an explanation why Bell's system itself should use all
`power capacity. Now is that a necessary condition? It may not happen
`at every instance in time. Batteries do have limited amounts of current that
`they can accept. But given Bell's teachings, a person of ordinary skill
`would give a battery as much as it can handle to maximize usage of the
`power source. And Bell says it explicitly there, all of the excess power
`source.
`Referring now to Slide 35. I simply want to show you that cell
`voltage -- battery voltage increases your end charge. This is showing a
`lithium ion battery, the same kind used in the combination here. Now
`referring to Slide 36, increasing battery voltage increases power demand,
`which causes the input current feedback loop to decrease charging current.
`In a quote here, the center quote, it notes, "The electrical power P, electrical
`power demand is a function of current I and Voltage V, particular P=IV" --
`Power equals current times voltage. Now we established that Bell intends
`to maximize use of his power source. So P is operating at its maximum
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`value. It can't increase any further. Yet as noted before, battery voltage,
`B, is increasing. And so for power to remain the same and voltage to
`increase, there's only one choice. The current to the battery, I , must
`decrease. And that's exactly what Bell does. It just said in several
`instances that the input current feedback loop, to maintain power at the
`desired maximum level, will decrease charging current.
`Your Honors, I'll refer you now to Slide 38. It summarizes these
`features here. One, combination maximizes charging power within a
`power constraint. Two, voltage on the battery increases during charging.
`Three, the electrical power demand is a function of current and voltage.
`And four, increasing battery voltage increases power demand, which causes
`the input current feedback loop to decrease the charging current.
`Now referring to Slide 39. We discussed the relationship between
`voltage and current. There's a question regarding sense parameters -- Let
`me make it clear that input current limiting is not a different approach than is
`used by the 591 Patent. In fact, input current limiting is the reason the 591
`Patent reduces charge. And it's also the mechanism that the patent uses for
`the doing so. At least in some embodiments. Keep in mind that we're
`dealing with USB power sources, which are very limited sources.
`Sometimes as low as 100 milliamps. Bell's teaching to use as much power
`as possible for charging. It's perfectly suited to that scenario when you're
`going to run into your limit very quickly.
`Slide 42 please. You'll hear today from Qualcomm that somehow
`Bell's current reductions are incidental. That's not the case. Bell
`explicitly states that it is actively limiting the power demand of the battery
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`charger. To reach Qualcomm's conclusion, you have to disregard the plain
`language of Bell, not once but time and again.
`Slide 43 please. In case there is any question about whether current
`is controlled, Dr. Phinney noted that current is controlled. And it's for the
`same reasons that I noted before. There's both an input current, feedback
`loop, and an output current feedback loop.
`Slide 44 please. You'll also hear Qualcomm argue that Bell only
`contemplated constant current charging. Bell does not agree. Bell notes
`here in quote, "It is an additional object of the invention to vary the charging
`rate of a battery." I want to be very clear on this point, Bell is not teaching
`pure constant current charging. Bell intends to lower the charging current.
`That is the whole reason that the input current control loop is there.
`I'll now move to Slide 49 discussing the combination with Gong.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Before you move on, one of the arguments
`that's made is that Bell does not explicitly state that the filtered current to the
`battery is reduced as the voltage increases. Clearly you're talking about
`input. In the Bell system, you were referring specifically to input current.
`What's your response to that? That it doesn't explicitly state it. That it's
`a natural occurrence and, in their terms, incidental occurrence as part of this
`power management system?
`MR. JEPSEN: Well Your Honors are very familiar with the law of
`obviousness. And we have established how this circuit operates and what a
`person of ordinary skill would understand from it. In obviousness, a person
`of ordinary skill is not limited to the explicit text of the reference. They
`can understand how the reference operates. And as I noted before, the way
`it operates, although Bell gives the example of system power fluctuating and
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`not triggering the input current control loop, we can plainly see that the
`contribution of current there is also from current flowing to the battery
`charger. And so regardless of the reason that the input current limiter is
`triggered for battery charging demand or for system power demand or some
`combination of both, the result is absolutely the same.
`Slide 49 please. So I want to emphasize the striking similarity
`between the teachings of the 591 Patent and Gong here. On the left, we
`have the 591 Patent and the red highlighted portion notes filtered current is
`reduced in a current control mode. On the right, explicitly in Gong, the
`amount of power supply to the battery is controlled by controlling the charge
`current. This is clearly a current control mode. And in the lower red
`section in Gong, the charge current, I-charge is reduced. Gong leaves no
`question on this point. And second, referring to the green sections in the
`591, this occurs as the voltage on the battery increases. In Gong, also as
`the voltage in the battery increases.
`Qualcomm never addresses this point. Qualcomm would rather
`discuss the vagaries and inferences about a specific peripheral figure. And
`I'll show that figure right now, Slide 50. In case there are any doubt,
`comparing Gong's approach in Figure 4 to the 591 approach on the left, they
`both are showing the same technique. On the left -- in both figures
`actually, the horizontal axis shows voltage increasing from left to right.
`And directly as a result of that, we see the stair step in red in both of these
`that is reducing current in discrete steps. Now Qualcomm makes various
`points about this figure. Argues that perhaps it's not a progression over
`time, but perhaps it's a snapshot in time. Perhaps the power current may
`vary. These conjectures really make no difference because you have to
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`take the figure in isolation. You have to take it out of context from Gong's
`disclosure to reach that conclusion.
`Slide 51 please. Gong unequivocally states that the charge current
`is reduced as in the top quote as the voltage of the battery increases. In the
`lower quotes, also adjusting a charge current as the battery voltage changes.
`And the final quote, the efficient charge current changes as the battery
`voltage changes. Read in context with Gong's full disclosure, there's no
`question that Gong teaches the same feature every time.
`Slide 52 please. Qualcomm can't deal with the point of disclosure
`of the references here. And so any peripheral issues about the combination,
`none of those arguments apply. Slide 54 please. Initially to discuss
`motivation, it's worth noting that Gong teaches battery charging managed by
`a power manager microprocessor, No. 6.
`Slide 55 please. A primary motivation here is to use
`microprocessor control to gain the flexibility to easily change current and
`voltage. Petitioner actually didn't come up with this argument. It was
`directly from Bell. Bell states as one of its sanctioned modifications to its
`own circuit, a host microprocessor can program the current and voltage
`characteristics, depending upon the design of the battery. Gong provides
`the technique to do exactly that.
`Slide 56 please. Further bolstering this combination, it is an object
`to -- or it would be obvious to achieve Bell's objective to provide battery
`charging circuitry, which is not specific to any one battery construction or
`sub- chemistry. Again, that's the original petition quoting Bell directly.
`And what does Gong teach? And another advantage of Gong's invention is
`that battery type specific processing can be readily provided for different
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2018-01283 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`IPR2018-01452 (Patent 7,834,591 B2)
`
`battery types. Ag
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
