Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper: 21
`Entered: October 7, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before, MIRIAM L. QUINN, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`DENYING PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper: 21
`Entered: October 7, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before, MIRIAM L. QUINN, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`DENYING PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On August 19, 2019, the Board issued a Final Written Decision in this
`proceeding. Paper 19 (“Final Dec.”). In that Decision, we determined that
`Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1−4,
`7−10, 15−19, 22−25, and 29 of the ’203 patent are unpatentable as obvious
`over Koenck.1 Id. at 44. We also determined that Petitioner had not shown
`by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 5, 6, 20, and 21 of the ’203
`patent are unpatentable. On September 18, 2019, Patent Owner filed a
`Request for Rehearing. Paper 20 (Req. Reh’g). Patent Owner argues two
`issues: (1) that the Final Written Decision relies on a ground that Petitioner
`did not assert, namely obviousness over Koenck alone; and (2) that the Final
`Written Decision does not explain why Patent Owner’s reliance on Doi was
`not sufficient. We address each issue in turn.
`According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), “[t]he burden of showing a
`decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,”
`and the “request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the
`Board misapprehended or overlooked.” The burden here, therefore, lies with
`Patent Owner to show we misapprehended or overlooked the matters it
`requests that we review. We are not persuaded that Patent Owner has shown
`that we misapprehended or overlooked the matters raised in the Request for
`Rehearing.
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 4,709,202, issued November 24, 1987, filed in the record
`as Exhibit 1005.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`
`A. OBVIOUSNESS OVER KOENCK ALONE
`Patent Owner’s first argument faults the Board for addressing in the
`Final Written Decision the ground of obviousness over Koenck alone:
`The Board misapprehended the law and the Petition in
`creating its own obviousness ground in the Final Written
`Decision. All grounds raised by Petitioner include
`modifications to Koenck based on Doi, but the Board’s
`Decision eliminates Doi to avoid the problems with the
`combination noted by Patent Owner throughout its Patent
`Owner Response and Sur Reply,
`thus
`improperly
`overlooking these arguments.
`
`Req. Reh’g 2−3. Patent Owner argues that under SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018), “it is not proper [for the Board] to deviate
`from the grounds in the petition and raise its own obviousness theory.” Req.
`Reh’g 3. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the Board has
`raised its own obviousness theory.
`The Petition here expresses alternative argument by stating, “to the
`extent that Patent Owner may argue that Koenck does not show setting the
`charging current to zero, Doi discloses it.” Pet. 32. Similarly, for the
`discharge limitation, the Petition states, “to the extent that Patent Owner
`argues that Koenck does not set the discharge current in response to battery
`temperature, Doi also discloses it.” Id. at 47. The Decision on Institution
`acknowledged these alternative arguments and provided notice of them to
`Patent Owner. See Decision on Institution, 15 (Paper 8) (“With regard to the
`limitation of setting the ‘charging current to zero’ (recited in claims 1 and
`16), we note Petitioner’s reliance on Koenck and Doi, separately and in
`combination.”), 16 (“With regard to Koenck, we are persuaded at this
`juncture by Petitioner’s argument and evidence that cutting off the charging
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`of the battery at 70°C reasonably maps to the limitation of setting the
`‘charging current to zero.’”), 18 (“Thus, even though Petitioner has relied on
`the combination of Koenck and Doi, Koenck alone appears to sufficiently
`teach the limitation [of setting the discharging current to zero], at this
`juncture.”), 19 (“Moreover, given our determination that Koenck reasonably
`maps to the limitation, we need not rely also on the combination of Koenck
`and Doi to decide whether to institute trial.”), 19 (discussing our view that
`Petitioner mapped Koenck to the limitations of claims 8 and 23, and that
`Petitioner also mapped Doi to the same limitations). In other words, because
`the Petition cited Koenck for teaching setting charging and discharging
`currents to zero—the only limitations for which Petitioner also cited Doi—
`we made clear in our analysis in the Decision on Institution that we
`understood Petitioner to have proffered a ground based on Koenck alone and
`a ground based on Koenck in combination with Doi.
`At oral argument, Patent Owner acknowledged that Petitioner’s
`position is that Koenck alone discloses the claim limitations. Tr. 42:2−16.
`In our Final Written Decision we again noted Petitioner’s alternative
`position when introducing the ground of obviousness over Koenck and Doi
`because we stated Petitioner’s allegations that Koenck discloses all the
`limitations of claims 1, 8, 16, and 12 (the independent claims), but that for
`the zero current limitations Petitioner also relied on Doi. Final Dec. 10.
`Therefore, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that we
`overlooked that the asserted ground was limited to the combination of
`teachings from Koenck and Doi.
`Furthermore, to have not considered Petitioner’s argument that
`Koenck alone teaches all the limitations of the claims would have been error.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`For instance, the Federal Circuit has recognized that when a petition sets
`forth a ground with multiple references, but the petitioner’s primary
`arguments rely on a single reference, the Board should consider those
`arguments irrespective of a motivation to combine references. Realtime
`Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1372−73 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (precedential).
`The Federal Circuit has also stated that such a situation does not raise any
`issue under SAS or the Federal Circuit’s cases interpreting SAS. See
`Polygroup Ltd. MCO v. Willis Elec. Co., 759 Fed. Appx. 934, 943 n.3 (Fed.
`Cir. 2019). Accordingly, we view the Final Written Decision as fulfilling
`our obligation to consider the arguments presented in the Petition, which
`include the contention of obviousness over Koenck alone.
`
`B. PATENT OWNER’S RELIANCE ON DOI
`Patent Owner argues that it relied on Doi as “evidence of a difference
`between Koenck’s statement that ‘the unit at high temperature . . . will cut
`off charging’ and the claimed requirement to ‘set said charging current to
`zero.’” Req. Reh’g 10. In particular, Patent Owner asserts, “Doi illustrates
`the error of the Board’s conclusion that Koenck’s ‘cut off charging’ and the
`claims’ ‘set said charging current to zero’ are the same.” Id. Patent Owner
`then takes issue with the Board’s analysis and concludes that “the Board
`never meaningfully explains why Doi does not evidence a difference
`between turning off charging and setting the charging current to zero, as
`argued by Patent Owner.” Id. at 11.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. In the Patent
`Owner Response, Patent Owner argued that “Doi refutes Petitioner’s
`conclusory statement by disclosing that it was ‘well known’ that a circuit
`may be designed such that battery charging is deemed to be turned off while
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`a measurable current is nevertheless still provided to the battery.” PO Resp.
`11. At oral argument, Patent Owner argued that Doi is evidence that Koenck
`alone does not teach the setting the charging current to zero limitation. Tr.
`42:13−43:18 (arguing that Doi is “evidence that the –just the word off does
`not refer to a current value in terms of amps.”). The Final Written Decision
`addresses Patent Owner’s argument. Final Dec. 20. We found Koenck’s
`disclosure unambiguously teaches that cutting off would mean that charging
`stops, with no evidence in Koenck that other current would be flowing. Id.
`at 20−21. We also found the Anderman Declaration persuasive and that the
`testimony provided in that Declaration was sufficiently supported by
`Koenck. Id. at 21−22. Finally, we addressed Patent Owner’s reliance on
`Doi and found it unpersuasive given the facts and testimony presented by
`Petitioner. Id. at 22−23. We also expressed doubts as to Patent Owner’s
`characterization of Doi’s leakage current, which Petitioner persuasively
`explained as only occurring when the charging circuit was designed to be
`“on.” Id. at 22 n.3. Our analysis shows why Patent Owner’s argument
`regarding Doi are not persuasive. Our analysis also shows why Petitioner’s
`evidence and testimony meet the preponderance of the evidence threshold.
`Patent Owner’s arguments urging rehearing of this matter express
`disagreement with the outcome we reached. The arguments do not show
`that we misapprehended or overlooked the argument raised in Patent
`Owner’s Response.
`Patent Owner also takes issue with our discussion of Table D in
`column 57 of Koenck as evidence that Koenck is internally consistent. Req.
`Reh’g 11−12. Patent Owner characterizes this is as new evidence and
`speculates as to why this evidence might have been detrimental to
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`Petitioner’s case, contending that it “may further explain why the Petition
`does not propose a challenge based on Koenck alone.” Id. at 12. We do not
`agree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the evidence or of the
`Petition. At the oral argument Petitioner’s counsel referred to Table D and
`column 57 when asked for evidence in the pseudocode that is consistent with
`Petitioner’s argument that Koenck consistently teaches cutting off charging
`at over 70 degrees. Tr. 26:24−27:21. Petitioner’s counsel stated that “from
`a duty cycle aspect . . . [at g]reater than 70 degrees, it cuts off the charge.”
`Id. at 27:11−13. The statement of Petitioner characterizing the duty cycle
`aspect as being “a slightly different approach” does not refer to the relevant
`“cutting off charge” discussion. Rather, the statement refers to other
`operational aspects that are irrelevant to the “cutting off” disclosure, such as
`the trickle charge disclosure and the setting of ranges of temperatures like 10
`to 55 and 55 to 70. Id. at 27:13−18. Patent Owner’s characterization of the
`“duty cycle” discussion at the oral argument is unsupported by the transcript
`of the discussion.
`Furthermore, we find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s argument that,
`even in 0% duty cycle, Koenck “could still have a non-zero current.” Req.
`Reh’g 12 (emphasis added). Patent Owner supports its argument by
`pointing to a statement in Koenck regarding the “deep cycle” mode: “the
`only time the zero level charge value will be selected is during the deep
`cycle function when much larger current levels will be drained form the
`battery.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1005, 11:19−22). It is unclear
`how this statement confirms that a 0% “duty cycle” could still have non-zero
`current value. Nevertheless, Koenck’s “deep cycle” mode refers to a
`sequence of operations where the battery is completely drained and followed
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`by a normal charge cycle. See Ex. 1005, 12:51−60. The “deep cycle”
`statement pointed to by Patent Owner says nothing about how Koenck
`would “cut off” charging when the temperature protection circuitry detects
`that battery temperature has reached or exceeds 70 degrees. Accordingly,
`we find Patent Owner’s argument unpersuasive.
`In conclusion, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner has shown that
`we misapprehended or overlooked the matters raised on rehearing and we
`see no reason to disturb our Final Written Decision in this proceeding.
`
`II. ORDER
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Scott J. Jarratt
`Jamie McDole
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`jamie.mcdole@haynesboone.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Mangrum
`Ryan Loveless
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@eheridgelaw.com
`
`
`Sean D. Burdick
`UNILOC USA, INC.
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 19
` Entered: August 19, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`We instituted inter partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314 to review
`claims 1−10, 15−25, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,661,203 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’203 patent”), owned by Uniloc 2017 LLC. Paper 8 (“Dec. on Inst.”). We
`have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision is
`entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the
`reasons discussed below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1−4, 7–10, 15−19, 22–25, and 29 of the ’203 patent are
`unpatentable, but Petitioner has not shown that claims 5, 6, 20, and 21 are
`unpatentable.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Matters
`The Petition lists several district court matters that involve the
`’203 patent. Paper 2, 3. However, Patent Owner indicates in its August 8,
`2018 Updated Mandatory Notice that all district court proceedings involving
`the ’203 patent have been terminated. Paper 7, 2.
`
`B. The ’203 Patent
`The ’203 patent relates to charging, discharging, and recharging
`rechargeable batteries under adverse thermal conditions. Ex. 1001, 1:8−12.
`The ’203 patent states that when a battery is being charged or discharged,
`internal heat is generated as current flows through the battery. Id. at
`2:13−16. The design tradeoffs when operating a battery near its maximum
`operating temperature are to maintain charge and discharge currents, which
`may compromise the battery life and reliability, or to set the charge and
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`discharge current to low levels consistent with the maximum operating
`temperature, which makes charge and discharge unacceptably slow. Id. at
`2:40−51. The ’203 patent utilizes a temperature sensor in combination with
`a battery charger, or a battery conditioner, to control charging and
`discharging current flow as a function of the battery temperature. Id. at
`3:58−61. Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a functional diagram of Smart Battery 2, which
`includes lithium cells 24, thermistor 18, controller 16, current sensor 20,
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`voltage sensor 22, and fuel gauge 26. Id. at 5:15−32. Figure 1 also depicts
`SMBus 4 coupled to controller 16 to communicate parameters such as the
`battery’s terminal voltage, the rate of current flow into or out of the battery,
`the charge state, including whether the battery is fully charged or fully
`discharged, and the temperature of the battery according to the thermistor
`temperature sensor. Id. at 5:1−6, 34−36. Smart Battery 2 specification
`provides for a maximum charge current of 3 amps at 12.6 volts in the range
`of temperatures from 0°C to 45°C. Id. at 5:11−13. The discharge is rated at
`3 amps from 0°C to 50°C. Id. at 5:12−13. Host controller 16 includes a
`memory with a look up table of charging and discharging currents related to
`temperatures. Id. at 5:61−63. Table 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Table 1 shows illustrative charging current and temperature values.
`Id. at 5:65−6:9. Host controller 16 periodically requests the battery
`temperature from the smart battery and uses this value to access the memory
`look up table to select a charging current associated with that temperature.
`Id. at 6:10−13.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 8, 16, and 23 are independent.
`Each of challenged claims 2−7, 9, 10, 15, 17−22, 24, 25, and 29 depends
`directly or indirectly from claims 1, 8, 16, or 23.
`Claims 1 and 8 are illustrative:
`1. An apparatus for charging a battery comprising:
`a charging circuit for providing a charging current to the
`battery;
`a temperature sensor positioned to sense a temperature of said
`battery; and
`a controller coupled to said temperature sensor and said
`charging circuit and operable to control said charging circuit
`in accordance with said temperature, said controller operable
`to set said charging current to zero when said temperature is
`higher than a first predetermined threshold value.
`8. An apparatus for exercising a battery, comprising:
`a charging circuit having a charging current output coupled to
`the battery;
`a temperature sensor positioned to sense a temperature related
`to the battery temperature;
`a discharging circuit having a discharging current input coupled
`to the battery; and
`a controller coupled to said temperature sensor, said charging
`circuit, and said discharging circuit, said controller operable
`to set said charging current in accordance with said
`temperature, and operable to set said discharging current in
`accordance with said temperature, said controller being
`operable to set said discharging current to zero when said
`temperature is higher than a first predetermined threshold
`value.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:34−45, 8:1−15.
`
`D. Procedural History
`Petitioner, Apple Inc., filed a Petition for inter partes review
`challenging claims 1−10, 15−25, and 29 of the ’203 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”).
`Patent Owner, Uniloc 2017 LLC, filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted trial on August 31, 2018. Dec. on Inst.
`During trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 10, “PO
`Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 11, “Reply”), and Patent Owner filed
`a Sur-Reply (Paper 12, “Sur-Reply”). Both parties requested oral argument,
`which took place on May 29, 2019, the transcript of which is filed in the
`record as Paper 18 (“Tr.”).
`
`E. Asserted Prior Art and Grounds of Unpatentability
`This proceeding relies on the following prior art references:
`
`a) Koenck: U.S. Patent No. 4,709,202, issued November 24, 1987,
`filed in the record as Exhibit 1005;
`
`b) Doi: JP Patent App. No. H11-283677, published October 15,
`1999, an English translation of which is filed in the record as
`Exhibit 1007; and
`
`c) Sakakibara: U.S. Patent No. 6,204,641 B1, issued March 20,
`2001, filed in the record as Ex. 1006.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet.
`12−13):
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`1, 5−8, 15, 16,
`20−23, and 29
`2−4, 9, 10, 17−19,
`24, and 25
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Koenck and Doi
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Koenck, Doi, and Sakakibara
`
`Petitioner also relies on a Declaration of Menahem Anderman, Ph.D.,
`filed as Exhibit 1003 (“Anderman Decl.”), and a Supplemental Declaration
`of Menahem Anderman, Ph.D., filed as Exhibit 1009 (“Second Anderman
`Decl.”). Other than demonstratives for its oral argument, Patent Owner did
`not file any exhibits in the record.
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In our Decision on Institution we adopted Petitioner’s construction for
`one term recited in dependent claim 6: “maximum charging temperature.”
`Dec. on Inst. 7−8. That construction is “the highest battery temperature at
`which the maximum charging current can be used.” Id. (citing Pet. 9−12)
`(emphasis omitted). Patent Owner submits that the Board does not need to
`construe any claim term in this proceeding. PO Resp. 4.
`The Board interprets claim terms of an unexpired patent using the
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018);1 see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.
`
`1 A recent amendment to this rule does not apply here because the Petition
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). We presume a claim term carries its “ordinary
`and customary meaning,” which is the meaning “the term would have to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of the invention. In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation
`omitted).
`Applying the plain and ordinary meaning to the term “maximum
`charging temperature,” we agree with Petitioner that term means “the
`highest battery temperature at which the maximum charging current can be
`used.” The specification provides support for this meaning by describing
`that the “Smart Battery specifications provide a maximum charge current to
`3 amperes at 12.6 volts in the range of temperatures from 0° C. to 45° C.”
`Ex. 1001, 5:9−12. In Table 1, the specification correlates the charging
`current of 2.0 amps for the temperature range of “Less than 45° C.” Id. at
`6:5. Thus, it flows from the specification that when the claim language
`refers to a predetermined threshold as the battery’s “maximum charging
`temperature,” it is referring to the upper limit of the range at which a
`maximum specified charging current can be applied, e.g., 45° C.
`Accordingly, we construe the term “maximum charging temperature” to
`mean “the highest battery temperature at which the maximum charging
`current can be used.”
`The parties do not raise any other claim construction issue for us to
`decide. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868
`
`
`was filed before November 13, 2018. See Changes to the Claim
`Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018)
`(amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018).
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be
`construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy.”).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(internal quotation and citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner proffers
`that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor’s degree
`in Electrical Engineering, Chemistry (or similar), or Physics (or similar), or
`equivalent training, as well as approximately two to three years of
`experience working in designing and developing rechargeable battery
`systems. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003, 6). On the current record, Patent Owner
`neither challenges Petitioner’s proffered level nor proposes a competing
`level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 3.
`We find that Petitioner’s assessment is consistent with the level of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior
`art in the instant proceeding. For example, Koenck (Ex. 1005) describes a
`battery system capable of optimizing the performance of a rechargeable
`electrochemical storage medium while at the same time maximizing its
`useful life, which we find would be within the purview of a person having
`the background set forth by Petitioner. Ex. 1005, 1:14−18, Fig. 5.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`Accordingly, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by
`Petitioner.
`
`C. Obviousness over Koenck and Doi
`Petitioner contends that Koenck discloses all the limitations of
`independent claims 1, 8, 16, and 23, except that for limitations reciting
`setting the charging/discharging current to zero, Petitioner also relies on Doi.
`Pet. 31−33. For dependent claims 5−7, 15, 20−23, and 29, Petitioner relies
`exclusively on Koenck as disclosing the further recited limitations. Id. at
`33−40, 51−53, 55, 56, 60. In our Decision on Institution, we determined that
`for this ground, Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`on its assertion that independent claims 1 and 16 and dependent claims 7, 15,
`22, and 29 would have been obvious over Koenck alone or in combination
`with Doi. Dec. on Inst. 12−23. We determined, however, that Petitioner had
`not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 5, 6, 20, and 21 are
`unpatentable as asserted. After consideration of the full record before us, we
`determine that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claims 1, 7, 8, 15, 16, 22, and 23 would have been obvious as asserted over
`Koenck alone. We also determine, as discussed below, that Petitioner failed
`to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 5, 6, 20, and 21
`would have been obvious over Koenck and Doi.
`
`1. Overview of Koenck (Ex. 1005)
`Koenck is entitled “Battery Powered System,” and is directed to a
`battery system capable of optimizing the performance of a rechargeable
`electrochemical storage medium, while at the same time maximizing its
`useful life. Ex. 1005, [54], 1:15−18. Koenck describes that, “[f]or the sake
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`of recharging of a battery system as rapidly as possible without detriment to
`an optimum useful life span, battery parameters including battery
`temperature can be monitored during a charging cycle and the battery
`charging current can be adjusted accordingly.” Id. at 1:44−49. Figure 5,
`depicting Koenck’s battery system, is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`
`Figure 5 illustrates an exemplary circuit diagram of the battery pack
`and associated monitoring and conditioning circuitry in accordance with one
`embodiment. Id. at 6:11−12. In particular, the battery pack includes a
`battery processor (in component 82), voltage monitor 91, current monitor 92,
`and temperature monitor 93. Id. at Fig. 5. The battery processor sends
`digital signals over line 95 to each of monitors 91–93. Id. at 6:62–67. The
`digital signals are converted to analog values and compared to analog
`measurements made by monitors 91–93 (i.e., battery voltage, current, and
`temperature). Id. at 6:62–7:5. This allows the measured analog values to be
`digitally approximated. Id. at 14:1–60, Fig. 10. “The digital measurement
`values so determined may be utilized as a basis for updating battery
`condition information in the memory of component 82.” Id. at 7:9–12. In
`this way, during a battery charging cycle, the battery processor is supplied
`with battery operating information from which an optimum battery charging
`current can be selected. Id. at 7:43−46.
`
`2. Overview of Doi (Ex. 1007)
`Doi describes a battery pack with a switching circuit for stopping
`charging and discharging, and a circuit for monitoring the condition of a
`secondary battery. Ex. 1007, 2. Doi states that when discharging with an
`overcurrent exceeding the maximum permissible current, the temperature of
`lithium ion batteries rises excessively, the cycle characteristic deteriorates
`irrevocably, and the safety valve operates and the battery becomes unusable.
`Id. ¶ 4. When charging using an overcurrent, the battery temperature
`increases abnormally and battery life is shortened. Id. ¶ 5. Doi discloses a
`charge/discharge control circuit comprising a monitoring circuit for
`monitoring the condition of each lithium ion battery and the connection state
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`of the electronic devices, and a switching circuit receiving a signal from this
`monitoring circuit to turn the charge and discharge currents ON and OFF via
`charge and discharge field-effect transistors (“FETs”). Id. ¶ 8. In particular,
`the monitoring circuit includes a microcomputer and a measuring unit,
`which includes a temperature measuring circuit for measuring the heat
`generation temperature of the lithium ion battery. Id. ¶ 9. The
`microcomputer determines the heat generation condition, among other
`conditions, based on the measurement signal from the temperature
`measuring circuit. Id. ¶ 10. In the event abnormal conditions are generated
`during charging, the microcomputer turns the charging FET to OFF to stop
`charging, and when abnormal conditions occur during discharging, the
`discharge FET is turned to OFF to stop discharging. Id.
`
`3. Independent Claims 1 and 8
`Claims 1 and 8 are apparatus claims and recite similar structures,
`except that claim 1 focuses on the charging circuit, while claim 8 recites
`both charging and discharging circuits. The Petition alleges that Koenck’s
`Figure 5 discloses all the structural limitations recited in the independent
`claims, as shown in the annotated Figure 5 provided in the Petition and
`reproduced below:
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`
`The above figure is an annotated version of Koenck’s Figure 5,
`provided by Petitioner at page 14 of the Petition. According to Petitioner,
`and we agree, Koenck’s battery charging controller 101 discloses the
`“charging circuit” of claims 1 and 8 (Pet. 21−22, 42), Koenck’s battery
`temperature monitor 93 discloses the “temperature sensor” of claims 1 and 8
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`(id. at 23−25, 42),2 Koenck’s battery deep discharge controller 110 discloses
`the recited “discharging circuit” of claim 8 (id. at 42−43), and Koenck’s
`component 82 (battery processor, timing and memory circuits) discloses the
`“controller” of claims 1 and 8 (id. at 25−27, 44−45). Patent Owner does not
`dispute any of the structural disclosures of Koenck, but focuses on the
`recited configuration of the controller. We discuss the recited controller’s
`operation in turn.
`
`Controlling Charging Circuit in Accordance with Temperature
`i.
`Claim 1 recites that the controller is “operable to control said charging
`circuit in accordance with said temperature.” Ex. 1001, 7:41−42. Petitioner
`offers two arguments that Koenck teaches this limitation. Pet. 28−29. First,
`Petitioner points out Koenck’s disclosure of line 98, which the battery uses
`to send information about the battery to processor 82. Id. at 28 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 7:5−9). According to Petitioner, Koenck’s disclosure teaches a
`person of ordinary skill in the art that the battery temperature is supplied to
`the battery processor via line 98. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 35). Second,
`Petitioner points out that the control mechanism in battery processor 82
`allows the battery processor to select an optimum battery charging current
`based on the battery temperature. Id. at 28−30 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:17−19,
`7:27−52, Fig. 5; Ex. 1003, 36). We agree with these arguments and the
`evidence provided in support that Koenck’s battery processor receives
`
`2 Petitioner relies on the temperature sensor of Koenck as teaching the
`“sensing a temperature” limitations recited in claims 16 and 23, discussed
`further below. Pet. 53, 57. We agree that Koenck’s temperature sensor
`teaches the limitations of claims 16 and 23 regarding the battery temperature
`sensor.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`battery information that includes the battery temperature and selects the
`optimum battery charging current, using that information.
`In our Decision on Institution, we did not rely on a further argument
`Petitioner made concerni
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
