PTAB

IPR2016-01597

Semiconductor Components Industries LLC doing Business As On Semiconductor v. Power Integrations Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Switch Mode Power Supply Controller
Brief Description: The ’908 patent relates to switch mode power supply circuits and controllers. The invention purports to solve the problem of increased cost and pin count associated with adding on-chip functionality by using a single "multi-function terminal" to control a plurality of functions within the power supply controller.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Motorola (MC33362 High Voltage Switching Regulator Data Sheet), publicly available no later than March 29, 1997.
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Motorola, a single-chip switching regulator, disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. The core of the argument centered on Motorola’s Pin 6, which Petitioner asserted was a "multi-function terminal," and its internal "Current Mirror" circuit, which was asserted to be the claimed "multi-function circuitry." A resistor connected to Pin 6 determined a current signal that was used by the Current Mirror to perform two distinct functions simultaneously: (1) it generated a current-limit adjustment signal to set the threshold for the Current Limit Comparator, and (2) it generated an oscillator frequency adjustment signal that was sent to the Oscillator. Petitioner contended this dual-function control from a single pin anticipated the core inventive concept of the ’908 patent. The petition provided detailed mapping showing how Motorola's power switch, control circuit, and feedback mechanisms met the remaining limitations of independent claims 1, 19, and 30.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Shinji (Japanese Application # H10-108457), published April 24, 1998.
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Shinji, which discloses a switching power supply control IC, also anticipated the challenged claims. The argument focused on Shinji’s "CS" terminal (pin 8), which Petitioner identified as the "multi-function terminal." The voltage at this single terminal was used to control at least two distinct on-chip functions: on/off control and over-voltage detection. The signal at pin 8 was fed to both an on/off comparator and an over-voltage comparator, which together comprised the "multi-function circuitry." These comparators controlled the output switching waveform based on different voltage thresholds at the single CS pin (e.g., turning on above 0.56V, turning off below 0.42V, and stopping the waveform if the voltage exceeded 7.0V). Petitioner argued that because these two distinct functions were operational at the same time and controlled via a single terminal, Shinji disclosed all limitations of the independent claims. Dependent claims were also allegedly met, as Shinji’s on/off and over-voltage functions were operational during startup, normal, and fault conditions.

"multi-function circuitry": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "circuitry capable of performing multiple functions." This construction was asserted to be critical because it is broad and not limited to the specific functions enumerated as examples in the ’908 patent specification. Petitioner supported this by citing the specification's use of "exemplary embodiments" and language stating the description is "illustrative rather than restrictive." The argument was that the claims rely on generic language, and where specific functions were intended, they were explicitly recited in dependent claims (e.g., claim 20), further supporting a broad construction for the term in the independent claims.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3-5, 9, 10, 19, 20, 22-24, and 30-34 of the ’908 patent as unpatentable.