Kinetic Technologies, Inc.v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2015

13028139 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 43
571-272-7822 Entered: October 19, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

KINETIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, Inc.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2
____________

Before GLENN J. PERRY, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
37 C.F.R. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Kinetic Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
“Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–29 of U.S. Patent No.
8,539,275 B2 (“the ’275 patent” (Ex. 1001)). Pet. 1. We instituted trial for
claims 4–6, 8–20, and 23–29 of the ’275 patent on certain grounds of
unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 8 (“Decision to Institute” or
“Inst. Dec.”).
After institution of trial, Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (“Patent Owner”)
timely filed the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 18, “PO Resp.”) along with
Declarations by Kevin P. D’Angelo, John Sung K. So, Richard K. Williams,
David Alan Brown, Kenneth K. Lee, and Nader Bagherzadeh, Ph.D., the
first four declarants being named inventors of the ’275 patent. Exs. 2028–
2033. Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 30 (“Pet. Reply”).
Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 33,
“Mot.”), particularly the main prior art reference (Ex. 1004) relied upon by
Petitioner for each ground of obviousness. Petitioner timely filed an
Opposition (Paper 34, “Pet. Opp. Mot.”) thereto and Patent Owner filed a
Reply (Paper 36, “Reply Opp. Mot.”). An oral hearing for IPR2014-00690
was held on June 4, 2015. The transcript of the hearing has been entered
into the record. Paper 41 (“Tr.”).
Subsequent to the hearing, the parties filed on June 12, 2015 a
Renewed Joint Motion to Terminate Proceedings (Paper 39, “Mot. Term.”).1

1 On May 27, 2015, prior to the hearing, the parties filed a Joint Motion to
Terminate Proceedings stating that “[t]he parties are in the process of
finalizing an agreement to settle their dispute.” Paper 37, 1. Because the

IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

3
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
B. Additional Proceedings
Petitioner stated that the ’275 patent was asserted against Petitioner in
Skyworks Solutions, Inc. v. Kinetic Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
00010 in the Northern District of California.2 Pet. 2; Paper 5. Petitioner
also states that the ’275 patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No.
10/144,333, now U.S. Patent No. 7,127,631(“’631 patent”), which is the
subject of Reexamination Control No. 95/000,501.3 Pet. 2.
C. The ’275 Patent
The ’275 patent, titled “Single Wire Serial Interface,” describes a
single wire serial interface for managing functions such as power level and
on and off switching for power integrated circuits and other devices. Ex.
1001, Abstract, 1:22–24. The ’275 patent explains that stand-alone power
systems for power integrated circuits are often constrained by package size
and cost, and where most of the available pins in such stand-alone power
applications are used for power load, there are few pins in the interface left
to accommodate power control functions. Id. at 1:34–43. The ’275 patent
states that ideally in such applications, minimal pins, or a single pin

agreement was not finalized, we did not terminate the proceedings and
conducted the hearing. Following the hearing the parties filed the Renewed
Joint Motion to Terminate Proceedings (Paper 39) indicating the agreement
had been finalized, and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b), filed a true copy of
the Confidential Patent Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2040).
2 A Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the lawsuit was filed by Patent Owner
on June 12, 2015.
3 An Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate issued September 23, 2015
confirming claims 3, 7, 13, 16, 19–21, and 25 of the ’631 patent.
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

4
“interface would be able to accommodate a wide variety of control needs
and be scal[]able to many levels of complexity.” Id. at 1:54–56. Figure 2 of
the ’275 patent illustrates, diagrammatically, integrated circuit 200 of the
invention having a single wire serial interface. Ex. 1001, 3:59–60. Figure 2
is reproduced below:

Figure 2 of the ’275 patent depicts integrated circuit 200 having one
or more inputs 202, and one or more outputs 204, as well as EN/SET signal
input 206. EN/SET input 206 is connected to sensing circuit 210 which, as
discussed further below, determines the voltage state, i.e., high, low, or
toggling, of the EN/SET signal. Id. at 1:65–66. Figure 1 of the ’275 patent
illustrates three waveform types defining EN/SET signal: (a) toggling
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

5
waveform 1, 2, 3, 4…n1; (b) constantly high waveform n; and (c)
constantly low waveform 0. Id. at 3:29–34.
Figure 1 is reproduced below:

As shown by Figure 1 of the ’275 patent, above, the number of clock
pulses of the toggling waveform determines a particular operational state of
the integrated circuit. Id. at 3:35–36. Constantly high waveform n instructs
the circuit to maintain a selected operational status, and constantly low
waveform 0 causes the circuit to turn off, or attain some other predetermined
state, after a predetermined timeout period has elapsed. Id. at 3:43–49.
Referring to Figure 2, above, sensing circuit 210 determines the waveform
type of the EN/SET signal and produces two output signals, Clock signal
and Enable signal to send to counter 212. Id. at 4:1–4. The ’275 patent
states that:
a rising transition of the EN/SET signal causes sensing circuit
210 to assert the Enable signal. Sensing circuit 210 holds the
Enable signal high until the EN/SET signal transitions to a
logical low state and remains in the low state until the
predetermined timeout period has elapsed.

Id. at 4:1015. The Enable signal is a gate signal for the Clock signal, as
long as the Enable signal is high, the Clock signal is forwarded by sensing
circuit 210 to counter 212. Id. at 4:15–17. In this case, counter 212 counts
the transitions, i.e., waveform pulses, forwarded by sensing circuit 210, e.g.,
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

6
1, 2, 3, 4. . . n, to determine a counter n-bit output. Id. at 4:22–23. Counter
212 resets to 0 “when sensing circuit 210 transitions the Enable signal to a
low value.” Id. at 4:24–25. ROM 214 receives the n-bit output which
corresponds to an m-bit word stored in the ROM defining a selected control
state. Id. at 4:26–28. ROM 214 passes the selected control state to Core
portion 208 producing a desired output 204, by way of example, for
controlling the specific brightness of light emitting diodes [LEDs] in a
backlight for a display. Id. at 4:30–32, 6:59–7:3.
D. Illustrative Claim
Of the challenged claims we instituted on claims 4–6, 8–20, and 23–
29. Claims 4 and 20 are independent. Claim 4 illustrates the claimed
subject matter and is reproduced below:
4. A backlight driver, comprising:
an input pin configured to be able to receive power from a
power source;
a light emitting diode (LED) driver circuit in communication
with the input pin and configured to drive a plurality
of LEDs, the LED driver circuit including a first circuit
configured to generate a count value by counting clock
pulses, a second circuit configured to generate a control
state in response to the count value, and a boost converter
configured to generate a boosted-output in response to
the control state, the boosted-output configured to control
brightness of the plurality of LEDs; and
an output pin in communication with the LED driver circuit
and configured to output the boosted-output for the plurality
of LEDs.
Ex. 1001, 7:568:3.

IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

7
E. The Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
References Basis Claims Challenged
LT19324, Legates5, and
Kato6
§ 103 4–6, 8, 12–20, and 23–29
Renner7, McIntyre8, and
LT1932
§ 103 4–6 and 8–19

II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
A. Legal Standard
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug.
14, 2012). In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In
re Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by
PTO regulation”). Claim terms are given their “ordinary and customary

4 Ex. 1004, Linear Tech. Corp., LT1932, Constant-Current DC/DC LED
Driver in ThinSOT 1–16 (2001).
5 Ex. 1010, Bryan Legates, Constant-Current DC/DC Converter Drives
White LEDs with 80% Efficiency, LINEAR TECH. MAG. 21 (May 2001).
6 Ex. 1005, Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. H06-
62468, published Mar. 4, 1994. Our citations to Kato are to Ex. 1006, the
English translation provided by Petitioner.
7 Ex. 1003, U.S. Patent No. 4,114,366 (iss. Sept. 19, 1978).
8 Ex. 1002, Steve McIntyre, Fred Phail, & Steve Thomas, Automotive
Electronics: The Future? Automotive Engineering 26 (Aug. 1989).
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

8
meaning” as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure.
In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). If
the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the
patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the
inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
In our Institution Decision, we provided claim constructions for
certain terms in Response to Petitioner’s asserted interpretations. See Inst.
Dec. 7–12. Patent Owner did not, in their Patent Owner’s Response, provide
its own claim constructions or object to our claim constructions. See PO
Resp. 1–59. We determined in our Institution Decision, and confirm for
purposes of this Decision, that the term “backlight driver” in the preamble of
claim 4, as well as “backlight circuit” in the preamble of claim 20, were not
limitations because the body of each claim defines a complete circuit
structure and “[n]othing in the bodies of these independent claims depends
on use of the circuit as a ‘backlight driver,’ or as a ‘backlight circuit,’ as
recited in the preambles.” Inst. Dec. 8–10. We also confirm that “a received
signal” as recited in claim 12 for example “does not refer to any specific
signal, and is not limited to the ‘clock pulse’ signal, or any other signal
recited in the claim.” Id. at 11 (citation omitted). Additionally, we construe
the term “boost converter” to mean “a power converter with an output
voltage greater than its input voltage,” and “boosted-output” to mean “an
output of a power converter greater than the input voltage to the power
converter.” Id. at 11–12.
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

9
III. ANALYSIS
A. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
1. Obviousness over LT1932, Legates, and Kato
Petitioner asserts that claims 4–6, 8, 12–20, and 23–29 are obvious
over the combination of LT1932, Legates, and Kato. Pet. 10. Patent Owner
raises the threshold issue of whether LT1932 is a “printed publication” under
§ 102. PO Resp. 13. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner has failed to
satisfy its burden that LT1932 is a prior art printed publication.” Id. at 16.
Patent Owner asserts specifically that Petitioner failed to properly show that
LT1932 was “‘sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art’
before the critical date.” Id. at 14 (citing In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160
(Fed. Cir. 1989)). Patent Owner further argues in its Patent Owner Response
that any further evidence presented by Petitioner that LT1932 is a printed
publication should be disregarded as untimely. Id. at 15. Subsequently,
with its Reply, Petitioner filed a declaration by Todd E. Reimund (Ex. 1012)
which purports to provide additional evidence that LT1932 is a printed
publication. Pet. Reply 5–6. We address first the threshold issue of whether
the LT1932 reference is a printed publication.
a. Printed Publication
Petitioner asserts that LT1932 is prior art to the ’275 patent under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 103. Pet. 5. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), a person is
entitled to a patent unless “the invention was . . . patented or described in a
printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof
by the applicant for patent.” “Whether a . . . document qualifies as a ‘printed
publication’ under § 102 is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual
determinations.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186,
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

10
1192 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). “‘Public accessibility’ has been
called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a
‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Id. at 1194 (citation
omitted). A reference is publicly accessible upon a satisfactory showing that
it has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that
persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art
exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it. Bruckelmyer v. Ground
Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also In re Cronyn,
890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“The statutory phrase ‘printed
publication’ has been interpreted to mean that before the critical date the
reference must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in
the art; dissemination and public accessibility are the keys to the legal
determination whether a prior art reference was ‘published.’”) (quoting
Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1568 (Fed. Cir.
1988)).
In In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the Federal
Circuit rejected an argument that “‘distribution and/or indexing’ are the key
components to a ‘printed publication’ inquiry” because that argument “fails
to properly reflect what our [Federal Circuit] precedent stands for,”
explaining that “printed publication” means reasonably accessible through
generally available media that serve to disseminate information. Id. at 1348.
“A printed publication need not be easily searchable after publication if it
was sufficiently disseminated at the time of its publication.” Suffolk Techs.,
LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The “printed publication” analysis under § 102 “involves a case-by-
case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

11
disclosure to members of the public.” Klopfenstein, 380 F.2d at 1350
(citations omitted).
Against this general background, we consider the evidence and
arguments on which the parties rely.
Petitioner takes the position that LT1932 is a “printed publication”
within the meaning of § 102, and in view of a date printed on the document,
because it was “published at least as early as 2001,” and therefore was
accessible prior to March 28, 2002, the date from which the ’275 patent
claims priority.9 Pet. 5. Petitioner supports its position with the declaration
of Todd E. Reimund, the Director of Corporate Marketing at Linear, the
company that purportedly printed the data sheet. Mr. Reimund asserts that
“[s]ince prior to 2001, it has been Linear’s standard practice to make
publicly available datasheets for, and articles related to, devices that Linear
was marketing, selling, and offering for sale.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 4. Patent Owner
disagrees, and via its Motion to Exclude Evidence contends that Petitioner
failed to establish that LT 1932 was published or publicly accessible before
the invention of the subject matter of ’275 patent and also that we should
disregard any new evidence, such as Dr. Reimund’s declaration testimony,
that was submitted with Petitioner’s Reply. PO Resp. 14–15.

9 The ’275 patent is a continuation of application No. 11/582,927, now U.S.
Patent No. 7,921,320, filed October 17, 2006, which is in turn a continuation
of application No. 10/144,333, now U.S. Patent No. 7,127,631, filed May
13, 2002 (see supra note 3), each of which claims priority to Provisional
application No. 60/368,474, filed March 28, 2002. Ex. 1001, 1.
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

12
b. LT1932
The LT1932 reference is a product data sheet for a constant current
DC/DC LED driver that directly regulates output current as opposed to
voltage. Ex. 1004, 1. According to its manufacturer, Linear Technology,
this feature makes the driver “ideal for driving light emitting diodes” that
provide illumination levels directly proportional to the supplied current. Id.
LT1932 details various parameters of the LT1932 product such as electrical
characteristics, efficiencies and ratings, product applications and
performance characteristics, and package descriptions and order information.
Id. at 1–16. Page 16 of LT1932, reproduced below, is the last page of the
reference. Printed in the bottom right corner of the page is “LT/TP 1201 2K
· PRINTED IN USA.” Id. at 16. The page also bears a copyright notice
stating “©LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 2001.” Id.

IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

13

IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

14
c. Reimund Declaration
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), the Declaration of Todd E. Reimund
was timely served by Petitioner in response to Patent Owner’s Objections to
Admissibility of Evidence. See Exs. 1015–16. Mr. Reimund’s Declaration
was also presented as Exhibit 1012 with Petitioner’s Reply. Pet. Reply 5–6.
Mr. Reimund states in his Declaration that he has been employed at Linear
Technology for twenty-two years and currently holds the position of
Director of Corporate Marketing there. Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 1–2. Mr. Reimund
states that his “principal job responsibilities include MARCOM and other
Marketing functions.” Id. He also states that he is “familiar with the
standard practices of Linear concerning the availability and publication of
datasheets.” Id. Mr. Reimund also avers that
[s]ince prior to 2001, it has been Linear’s standard practice to
make publicly available datasheets for and articles related to
devices that Linear was marketing, selling, and offering for
sale. Such documents were made available to interested
participants of the electronics industry and to the public through
various means such as the Internet, product packaging, and
marketing materials, including a publication known as Linear
Technology Magazine[.]
Id. ¶ 4. Mr. Reimund testifies that the four-digit code “1201” on the final
page of the reference “indicates a date of December 2001.” Id. ¶ 5. Mr.
Reimund further states that “[t]he documents were made publicly available
shortly after the footer dates were applied. Linear maintains and I have
reviewed a database reflecting the dates that such documents were made
publicly available.” Id.
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

15
d. Motion to Exclude
By way of background, we determined for purposes of institution that
the LT1932 product datasheet bearing a 2001 copyright notice suffices as a
threshold showing of public availability sufficient to institute trial. See
Apple, Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., Case IPR2015-00369, Paper 14, 5
(PTAB Aug. 12, 2015), see also LG Elecs., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices,
Inc., Case IPR2015-00329, Paper 13, 11–12 (PTAB July 10, 2015) (“the
presence of a copyright notice, together with the listing of the reference in an
IDS, may be taken as some evidence of public accessibility as of a particular
date”). Based on its timely filed objections under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b) (Ex.
1015) to Petitioner’s evidence filed with the Petition, Patent Owner filed a
Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 33, “Mot.”), particularly the LT1932
datasheet arguing that Petitioner’s evidence of public accessibility, i.e., the
2001 copyright date, is insufficient, and that the supplemental evidence
served by Petitioner, specifically, Mr. Reimund’s Declaration (Ex. 1012)
filed with Petitioner’s Reply, is untimely and should have been presented
properly with the Petition. Mot. 1–6.
As the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has noted previously, a motion
to exclude is properly related to the admissibility of evidence (e.g.,
authenticity or hearsay). See Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-Alert Pty Ltd.,
CBM2013-00005, slip op. at 5 (PTAB Nov. 15, 2013) (Paper 56). Patent
Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is directed, however, to the sufficiency
of evidence concerning whether or not LT1932 is prior art to the claimed
subject matter in the ’275 patent. Patent Owner argues in its Motion that
“[t]he Petition asserted, without evidentiary support, that Exhibit 1004 ‘was
published at least as early as 2001.’” Mot. 2 (citing Pet. 5). Although Patent
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

16
Owner states that Petitioner does not establish the necessary “foundation,”
the arguments presented by Patent Owner are directed specifically to the
sufficiency of the copyright date of 2001 as evidence of a publication date,
and hence public accessibility, of LT1932. See id. at 2–4. Arguments
related to whether a copyright date is sufficient evidence of public
accessibility so that LT1932 is, or is not, a “printed publication” under
35 U.S.C. § 102 are properly presented in a reply rather than in a motion to
exclude.
With respect to Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Reimund’s
Declaration should be excluded as irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402, this
admissibility objection is based on Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner’s
evidence is insufficient to establish LT1932 as prior art where Patent Owner
has provided evidence of conception prior to December 31, 2001. Mot. 5.
For example, Patent Owner argues in its Motion that “Petitioner cannot carry
its burden to show that the claims of the patent are invalid unless it presents
sufficient evidence in the Petition itself that a relied upon reference is prior
art to the ’275 Patent.” Id. (emphasis added) (original emphasis omitted).
Such an argument addressing the sufficiency of Petitioner’s temporal
evidence is misplaced in a motion to exclude. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s
Motion to Exclude Evidence is denied.
e. Whether LT1932 is a Printed Publication
We turn now to the question of whether Petitioner has demonstrated,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the LT1932 reference was
described in a printed publication prior to the invention date of the subject
matter described and claimed in the ’275 patent.
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

17
As discussed above, Patent Owner contends in its Patent Owner
Response that the copyright date of 2001 is insufficient to show that LT1932
was accessible to the public. PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner also contends that
the supplemental evidence of Mr. Reimund’s Declaration provided in
Petitioner’s Reply should be disregarded as untimely. Id. at 15.
Turning to Petitioner’s Reply, with which the supplemental evidence
of Mr. Reimund’s Declaration was filed, we note that a petitioner’s reply to
a patent owner’s response may address only issues raised in the
corresponding opposition. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
48,756, 48,767. Petitioner was entitled to rebut Patent Owner’s arguments
concerning the public accessibility of LT1932 in its Reply with Mr.
Reimund’s Declaration because the Declaration was filed in response to
Patent Owner’s objective criteria of public accessibility asserted in Patent
Owner’s Response. We agree with Petitioner that the testimony in Mr.
Reimund’s Declaration, submitted initially as supplemental evidence under
37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), is also directed essentially to issues raised in the
Patent Owner Response, namely the sufficiency and facts pertaining to the
2001 copyright date and purported publication date printed on LT1932. Pet.
Reply. 5–6, Pet. Opp. Mot. 2–4.
We determine that the priority date, for purposes of this Decision, is
March 28, 2002, the filing date of the ’474 provisional application that
became the ’275 patent.10 Patent Owner provides persuasive evidence that

10 Patent Owner provides evidence of conception and reduction to practice of
the invention claimed in the ’275 patent prior to December 31, 2001, and
also evidence of diligence leading to the filing of the ’474 provisional
application on March 28, 2002. See PO Resp. 35–57. Based on this

IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

18
the 60/368,474 (“’474”) provisional application contains essentially identical
disclosure to that of the ’275 patent and that each of the claims at issue is
supported by disclosure in the ’474 provisional application. PO Resp. 54–
57, compare Ex. 2016, with Ex. 1001; Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 54–55; Ex. 2028 ¶ 90.
Petitioner presents two pieces of evidence that LT1932 is prior art:
(1) the four-digit date code of “1201” and 2001 copyright notice in the footer
on the last page of the LT1932 data sheet, and (2) Mr. Reimund’s
Declaration. Mr. Reimund testifies that the date code “‘1201’ indicates that
the datasheet was made public, and Linear customers and members of the
public were able to access the datasheet no later than December 2001.” Ex.
1012 ¶ 6. Therefore, Petitioner contends, “Exhibit 1004 is a printed
publication that was made public in 2001.” Pet. Opp. Mot. 3. As the
Director of Corporate Marketing and a long term, twenty-two year employee
of Linear, we are persuaded that Mr. Reimund is familiar with the
company’s business practice of producing datasheets, such as the LT1932
datasheet, for “marketing, selling, and offering for sale” certain products, as
stated in his Declaration. Ex. 1012 ¶ 4. We are also persuaded by Mr.
Reimund’s testimony that it has been the common business practice of
Linear to date code documents such as LT1932 “to reflect the printing date,”
in this case December 2001. Id. ¶ 5. Specifically, Mr. Reimund states that
“[b]efore Linear published a datasheet, it would date code the document to
reflect the printing date . . . ‘1201’ on the final page in the footer of a Linear
data sheet indicates a date of December 2001.” Id. According to Mr.

evidence, Patent Owner contends that the critical date is actually December
19, 2001. Id. at 40. We need not reach this issue here for the reasons
explained in the Decision.
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

19
Reimund “[t]he documents were made publicly available shortly after the
footer dates were applied.” Id. A “printing date” is not, however, without
more, sufficient evidence of public accessibility as of that particularly date.
See e.g., LG Elecs., Case IPR2015-00329 (Paper 13, 13) (Declarant’s
“unsupported opinion that EIFUFAL501 ‘was more than likely published on
or about March 24, 1998’ (id.) is insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable
likelihood that EIFUFAL501 was published before June 1, 1998.”)
The bare testimony of Mr. Reimund that the printing date “‘1201’
indicates that the datasheet was made public, and Linear customers and
members of the public were able to access the datasheet no later than
December 2001” (Ex. 1012 ¶ 6) is not persuasive evidence that the “printing
date” can be equated to the publication date. In his Declaration, Mr.
Reimund stated that such documents “were made publicly available shortly
after the footer dates were applied.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 5 (emphasis added). Mr.
Reimund’s testimony, however, provides no further explanation as to what
time period, hours, days or months etc., is encompassed by the term “shortly
after.” Giving some weight to Mr. Reimund’s testimony that it was common
business practice for documents to bear a printing date such as “1201”
indicative of a printing date of December 2001, his opinion that LT1932 was
publicly available “shortly after” that date is vague and insufficient by itself
to demonstrate that LT1932 was accessible to the public prior to the filing of
the ’474 provisional application on March 28, 2002. Mr. Reimund further
states that “Linear maintains and I have reviewed a database reflecting the
dates that such documents were made publicly available.” Id. ¶ 5. The
database referred to by Mr. Reimund is not part of the record in these
proceedings and this explicit reference to purported important corroborating
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

20
evidence is ambiguous without the specific database and dates he reviewed.
Overall, Mr. Reimund’s testimony does not state any facts or circumstances
relating to specific dates, or even a general time frame, after December 2001
that LT1932 was in fact publicly accessible. Mr. Reimund’s testimony
alleging that LT1932 was publicly available “shortly after” December 2001,
does not sufficiently temporally link the December 2001 printing date to the
alleged public availability of the reference prior to March 28, 2002.
Consequently, on this record we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that LT1932 is a printed
publication available before the priority date.
2. Obviousness over LT1932, Renner, and McIntyre
Petitioner asserts that claims 4–6 and 8–19 are obvious over the
combination of LT1932, Renner, and McIntyre. Pet. 47–59. Because we are
not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that LT1932 is a printed publication available before the priority
date, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 4–6 and 8–19 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over LT1932, Legates, Renner, and McIntyre.
3. Renewed Joint Motion to Terminate Proceedings
Following the oral hearing on June 4, 2014, the parties filed a
Renewed Joint Motion to Terminate Proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)
on June 12, 2015. Accompanying the Motion, the parties filed a true copy of
a settlement agreement (Ex. 2040) along with a joint request to treat the
settlement agreement as business confidential (Paper 40), to be kept separate
from the patent file pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Based on the facts of this case and because the settlement was not concluded
IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

21
until after the oral hearing and we had substantially decided the merits of the
proceeding, we exercise our discretion not to terminate this proceeding. The
Renewed Joint Motion to Terminate Proceedings is denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
A. Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 4–6, 8, 12–20, and 23–29 are unpatentable in view of
LT1932, Legates, and Kato.
B. Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 4–6 and 8–19 are unpatentable in view of LT1932, Renner,
and McIntyre.

V. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that claims 4–6, 8–20, and 23–29 have not been shown by
a preponderance of the evidence to be unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is
denied;
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties Renewed Joint Motion to
Terminate Proceedings is denied; and
FURTHER ORDERED that this is a final written decision and that
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

llw

IPR2014-00690
Patent 8,539,275 B2

22
For Petitioner:

Joshua Goldberg
Weiguo Chen
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
will.chen@finnegan.com

For Patent Owner:

Brenton R. Babcock
Ted M. Cannon
Michelle E. Armond
KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
2brb@knobbe.com
2tmc@knobbe.com
2mea@knobbe.com