`
`
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held May 29, 2019
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`MICHAEL S. PARSONS, ESQUIRE
`ANDREW S. EHMKE, ESQUIRE
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2505 North Plano Road
`Suite 4000
`Richardson, TX 75082-4101
`972-739-8611
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BRETT MANGRUM, ESQUIRE
`Etheridge Law Group
`2600 East Southlake Boulevard
`Suite 120
`Southlake, TX 76092
`817-470-7249
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, May
`
`29, 2019, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the Texas Regional Office of the
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, 207 South Houston Street, Suite
`159, Dallas, Texas 75202.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
` (Proceedings begin at 1:00 p.m.)
` JUDGE QUINN: All right. We're on the record.
`Thank you everyone for coming here. This is IPR2018-00523,
`concerning patent number 6,661,203. On the caption we have
`Apple Inc. versus Uniloc 2017, LLC.
` Who do we have here representing Apple?
` MR. EHMKE: Hello again, Your Honors. My name is
`Andrew Ehmke on behalf of Apple. With me today are Michael
`Parsons and Calmann Clements from Haynes and Boone, as well as
`Mark Breverman from Apple. Presenting today will be Mr.
`Parsons.
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you. Welcome to Dallas,
`everyone. And who do we have for -- representing Uniloc 2017?
` MR. MANGRUM: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Brett
`Mangrum, lead counsel for Uniloc. I will be presenting today.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Thank you. All right. I think
`you all know the drill here, so I'll just debrief. We have
`two judges appearing remotely, Mr. -- Judge Charles Boudreau
`presiding from San Jose, California, also, Judge John Horvath.
`And they have the slides that you have filed, so we can follow
`along. Please state the number of the slide that you're on,
`so they can follow along with you. There will be no
`objections spoken, interjecting each others arguments. If you
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`have an objection to your opponents slides you can state your
`objection and whatever argument you have during your own time.
` Petitioner bears the burden of proof, so you start
`first. You may reserve time for rebuttal and Patent Owner may
`also reserve time for rebuttal. Let's start with Petitioner.
`Are you ready?
` MR. PARSONS: Good morning -- good afternoon. I'm
`Michael Parsons with Haynes and Boone, representing
`Petitioner, Apple.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. So you have 30 minutes.
` MR. PARSONS: I'd like to reserve 10 minutes for
`rebuttal.
` JUDGE QUINN: 10 minutes.
` MR. PARSONS: Yes, thank you.
` JUDGE QUINN: Hold on one minute while I set the
`timer.
` MR. PARSONS: Okay.
` JUDGE QUINN: I will set for 30. You will be given
`a warning at 10 minutes.
` MR. PARSONS: All right.
` JUDGE QUINN: Do you have slides that you have
`provided to the court reporter?
` MR. PARSONS: Yes.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. All right. You can start when
`you're ready.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
` MR. PARSONS: Great. Thank you, Your Honor.
` Thank you, Your Honors, for your time today. There
`are a number of issues that we'd like to discuss with the
`board. Turning to Slide 2 of our demonstratives, there's five
`issues that we've listed here, primarily, that we'd like to
`get through today. I'm more than happy to entertain your
`questions as we move through them.
` Moving on to Slide 3, the first issue that we would
`like to discuss is the scope of the discharge limitation. The
`board asked us to address in the institution decision. And
`the -- what we'd like to address about this, specifically,
`turning to Slide 4, Claim 8 is a representative example in the
`'203 Patent of what we call the discharge limitation. It
`includes two statements that the controller is operable to do
`a couple of things.
` The first one in Claim 8 -- Claim 8's a
`representative sample, Claim 23 is also at issue in this case
`that recites a similar limitation. In Claim 8, what we have
`here, is we have two things. One is that the controller is
`operable to set the discharge current in accordance with the
`battery's temperature. And then it also sets the discharge
`current to zero when the temperature is higher than a first
`predetermined value.
` The way that we've interpreted this in the petition
`is that these are basically a generic limitation that recites
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`the general concept of setting a discharge current in
`accordance with temperature, and the more specific limitation
`of setting the discharge current in accordance -- setting the
`discharge current to zero when the temperature exceeds a first
`predetermined threshold. So essentially, what we are -- what
`we believe the scope of this limitation is, is a situation
`where you have a broad limitation and then a more narrow
`limitation but that the narrow limitation is included entirely
`in the broader limitation.
` Moving on to Slide 5 --
` JUDGE QUINN: So you're saying that by identifying
`in the art, the very narrow limitation by implication
`(indiscernible 00:05:41)?
` MR. PARSONS: Yes, Your Honor. We believe this is a
`species situation where the species is the idea of setting the
`discharge current to zero if you hit a predetermined
`threshold, and that's just one instance of setting the
`discharge current in accordance with the temperature of the
`battery. Okay.
` In Slide 5, what we've discussed here is the same as
`we've discussed in our reply, which is the prosecution history
`of the '203 Patent leads us to this interpretation that we've
`relied on. Basically, what Claim 5 shows is the original
`claims, Claim 9 and 16, you can see that the general
`limitation, the broader one, is highlighted in green in Claim
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`9. The more specific limitation is in 16. In order to get an
`allowance, they just merely amended the dependent limitation
`of the independent claims, which further shows that, really,
`all these two things are doing is reciting the general and
`then the more narrow specific limitation.
` Moving on with Slide 6, we'd like to address Koenck
`and the teachings in Koenck and some of the patent owners
`arguments in regards to Koenck. This issue is basically being
`raised in the patent owner response. And moving on to Slide
`7, we provide a representative sample of both the charge
`limitation and the discharge limitation. Claim 1 is a
`representative example of Claim 16 and, I believe, Claim 25 is
`also at issue in the independent claims. Claim 8 that we've
`just discussed is the discharge limitation.
` With the charge limitation, it's very similar to the
`discharge limitation. There is a general concept of setting
`the battery -- setting the charge current in accordance with
`the battery's temperature, and a more narrow limitation of
`setting the charge current to zero when the battery exceeds a
`threshold.
` Moving on to Slide 8. In Koenck and what we pointed
`to in the petition is an example of pseudocode that's in
`Koenck. And what this does is this shows that if the battery
`exceeds a temperature of 70 degrees, then the discharge is set
`to off. From the discharge side, we believe that Koenck
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`teaches this limitation and we rely on that in part on Slide
`9, that we show the opinion of our expert basically saying
`that when the charging current is set to off via the software
`controller, then that would effectuate a zero current in the
`system.
` Uniloc is arguing on -- that -- we've included that
`on the top of Slide 9, where the argument really boils down to
`one thing which is the fact that Koenck doesn't say
`specifically setting the discharge current to zero. But based
`on the teaching of Koenck and the pseudocode of the battery
`discharge being set to off and our -- the opinion of our
`expert of what off means to a person of ordinary skill in the
`art, we feel that it's sufficient to show that even though it
`doesn't say the words, set to zero, that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would understand that when you are setting
`the battery discharge to off because the battery is
`overheating, that that means that zero current is passing to
`the battery, or is being drawn from the battery on the
`discharge side.
` With regards to Koenck teaching the charging
`current, moving on to Slide 10, we've relied on the petition
`and the teaching of Koenck of this idea of Koenck teaching
`this over-under temperature protection. And what that does,
`is when the unit is 70 degrees or higher, the charging will be
`cut off. Uniloc has argued that cut off is not sufficient to
`
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`say set to zero, but again, our expert is of the opinion that
`when you say cut off in the terms of a circuit and in terms of
`battery, that cutting off means that a zero current would be
`passing to the battery on the charging side.
` Moving on to Slide 12, we've also included Doi in
`the combination with Koenck with -- and we'd like to address
`the teachings of Doi. Moving on to Slide 13. The important
`thing to remember with Doi is that Doi teaches the basic
`concept of prohibiting charging and discharging the batteries
`over 60 degrees. Like Koenck, Koenck has a temperature
`threshold of 70 that it stops charging and discharging, Doi
`teaches the same thing. It has a temperature protection that
`it -- when it's 60 degrees, it stops charging and discharging.
` The way that Koenck -- the way that Doi operates,
`sorry, is -- we've put that in Slide 14. Specific to Doi, Doi
`monitors for a number of different conditions of the battery.
`One of them is a heat generation condition. The other
`conditions that are offered in Paragraph 10 is an overcharge,
`an over-discharge. Namely, Doi looks for a number of battery
`abnormalities. One of them is a heat condition and this is
`what we've referred to in the petition.
` And the way that that operates in Doi is when the
`microcomputer detects too much heat coming from the battery,
`it uses FET switches -- two different ones, one for charge and
`one for discharge, and it sets them to off in order to protect
`
`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
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`the battery from overheating or continuing to overheat.
` JUDGE QUINN: Where does this -- where does Doi
`disclose that both of those turn off when you have a
`temperature abnormality.
` MR. PARSONS: Well, if you turn back to Slide 13,
`you'll see that we've referenced in Doi, Paragraph 151. It
`specifically says what we've highlighted in yellow as the
`temperature at which charging/discharging is prohibited is 60
`degrees Celsius. We take that to mean that when Doi detects
`an overheat condition at 60 degrees, on Slide 14, for example,
`in Paragraphs 45 and 46 of Doi, Doi specifically says that
`discharge FET 24 forcibly stops the discharge of the battery
`pack and that's to protect the battery from falling into a
`dangerous condition from an abnormal situation like a heat
`condition.
` The same thing is true in Paragraph 46, where Doi
`says the same thing about the charge FET stop is turned off.
`And so when the battery is overheating, both FETs are turned
`off in order to protect the battery from that overheat
`condition.
` JUDGE QUINN: But there's another way to read that
`and that is if the temperature abnormality occurs during
`charging, then you turn off the transistor that is in the
`charging side. And if the overheat condition occurs from the
`discharge, then you turn off the discharge transistor. You
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`don't turn them both off, because there's -- you're only doing
`one or the other.
` MR. PARSONS: Well, I -- in Doi's system it's
`actually doing both. It talks about the fact that the battery
`can be plugged into the electronic device and the electronic
`device can be drawing a current while the battery is being
`charged, like on a computer system, for example. Because Doi
`teaches --
` JUDGE QUINN: Where does Doi say that?
` MR. PARSONS: I can provide you an example in Doi.
`In Figure 1, if you can bring up -- I need to point at the
`exhibit exactly. But Doi is a battery's charging system
`that's connected to an electronic device.
` JUDGE QUINN: Yeah, but Doi also discloses that it
`is connected to a charger when it needs to be charged. So we
`see they're connected to the electronic device when in
`discharge mode and then it's connected to the charger when
`it's being charged?
` MR. PARSONS: Correct. And it can be connected to
`the charger and be discharged at the same time. It does -- it
`serves both functionality and that's why the FET switches are
`aligned in serial in Doi's because -- it's because it
`contemplates the idea that you could be charging and
`discharging the battery at the same time. You could be
`receiving a current from a charger while you're powering an
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`electronic device.
` JUDGE QUINN: Where does is say that?
` MR. PARSONS: Well, let me first point you to -- if
`you can flip to -- it's the -- I'm going to need a minute to
`point that out. Let me -- let me refer back to that in just a
`moment. Your Honor, let me come back to that question
`specifically about Doi charging, discharging. I need to -- I
`need a moment to look that specifically up.
` The basic idea here is that whether you're charging
`or discharging the battery, the battery is going to not be --
`is over 60 degrees, the battery is going to not receive a
`charger or a discharge, because Doi prohibits charging and
`discharging. So when they occur at the same time, whether
`you're charging or discharging, both those FETs are shut off
`in order to prevent the battery from having a current pass in
`or out because it's in an overheat condition. I will look up
`where it talks about charging and discharging at the same time
`and I'll get back to you on that one.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` MR. PARSONS: Okay.
` JUDGE HORVATH: So could you just explain what the
`-- what your understanding of the meaning of on and off with
`respect to discharge stop FET 24 and charge stop FET 25 is?
`I'm a little bit confused by the use of the word stop there.
` MR. PARSONS: Okay.
`
`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
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
` JUDGE HORVATH: Specifically, my question is whether
`when discharge stop FET 24 is in the off condition, does that
`mean that there's no discharging going on --
` MR. PARSONS: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE HORVATH: -- or does that mean that there is
`discharging?
` MR. PARSONS: If the FET is set to off, that means
`the discharge is being stopped. Likewise, for the charge FET
`25 it is -- if it is set to off, it means there's no charge
`passing to the battery. So off means that there's -- that the
`connection between the charger and the battery is broken or
`vice versa. The discharge is stopped if it's set to off.
` JUDGE HORVATH: So off means that it's --
` MR. PARSONS: Off means that it's stopped. Yes.
` JUDGE HORVATH: Thank you.
` MR. PARSONS: Yes. Okay. All right.
` JUDGE QUINN: I also want to ask you about your
`Slide 13.
` MR. PARSONS: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: That portion of Doi that you have
`there on Paragraph 151, you cited in the petition for the
`proposition that Doi proposes a threshold.
` MR. PARSONS: Correct, Your Honor. We did.
` JUDGE QUINN: You did not explain that in the
`sentence that you have charging and discharging occurring
`
`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
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`simultaneously or that both of them are disabled for the
`temperature condition. So how do you propose that we use that
`for any other purpose other than the 60 degree threshold that
`I just disclosed?
` MR. PARSONS: Well, Your Honor, I think you should
`take it on it's face that the temperature at which charging
`and discharging is prohibited is 60 degrees. That's the
`threshold. And we talked -- we presented this as a threshold.
`The fact is that when the threshold is reached, Doi teaches
`prohibiting both the charging and the discharging. We've
`presented in the petition as that concept, is that that's the
`threshold that's applied to not just stop either one, but Doi
`specifically says that it stops both when that happens.
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, you didn't explain it that way
`in the petition. How are we supposed to read it that way?
` MR. PARSONS: I would propose the fact that this is
`what it says in the art. I would suggest that the art is
`supposed to be taken as a whole, that the teachings of the
`prior art should be considered. We've pointed to numerous
`places in Doi. Doi tells a consistent story that it prohibits
`charging and discharging of the battery when the battery hits
`a threshold. The way it does that is it uses FET switches to
`set that off condition, so no electrons can pass to or from
`the battery in that case.
` JUDGE QUINN: Yeah, I understand that, but you're
`
`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
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`coming in here post-petition trying to explain that your
`theory of operation of Doi is that now both switches are off
`during the temperature abnormality. And that was not
`explained in the petition and you're using this sentence here
`for that purpose. And that sentence was not offered to
`support that intention.
` MR. PARSONS: Well, I -- to that point, I would
`direct your attention back to the claims. Claim 1
`specifically deals with a charging side where charging is set
`to zero if the battery exceeds a predetermined threshold. It
`doesn't discuss discharging that claim. Claim 8, specifically
`goes to the discharge elements being set to zero. There's no
`claim in these patents that address both of them being set to
`zero at the same.
` So for all we've presented in the petition, we
`presented it -- that in the petition because we're dealing
`with specific to Claim 1, setting the charging current to zero
`and specific to Claim 8, for example, setting the discharge
`current to zero. There's no claim that specifically requires
`both of them to be set to zero. We're just -- that's just
`what -- the way Doi's operation of doing that. The way we've
`presented it in the petition is because we're dealing with a
`specific limitation of just the discharge set to zero or the
`charge being set to zero, that's how we've addressed -- that's
`what we've positioned the prior art with. The petition is to
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`address those actual limitations.
` The teaching of Doi doing both is what Doi does.
`But the way we've addressed that to the petition is two of
`those specific limitations of setting those to zero in those
`separate claims.
` JUDGE QUINN: I understand that, but my
`understanding of what you put in the reply is that you're
`trying to address Patent Owner's arguments that during, for
`example, discharge, you will have switch 25 on and switch 24
`off. And that happens when you have a temperature abnormality
`condition. And I took your reply to mean that your contention
`is that both 25 and 24 are off during that abnormality?
` MR. PARSONS: In response to Patent Owner's
`arguments about what happens in Doi in the state of the FETs
`during an overheat condition, or an overcharge condition, or
`other things. That's what we've argued in our reply to
`address Patent Owner's arguments on that point. What we
`presented in the petition deals with the specific limitations
`in the claim. So that's why we've slightly -- we've addressed
`those arguments slightly differently because of the way that
`they've been presented in the response.
` JUDGE QUINN: But there's a change in your position.
`Your position originally was to rely on the disclosures that
`say 25 is on and 24 is off during discharge.
` MR. PARSONS: No, Your Honor. I don't remember -- I
`
`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
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`don't -- we've never addressed the discharge FET in addressing
`the charge condition in the petition. We've only ever
`addressed in the petition that the discharge -- that the
`charge FET for the charging claims in Claim 1, for example,
`that when the charge stop FET is set to off, that the battery
`is discontinued. We also relied on Koenck for this position,
`because Koenck specifically teaches cutting off the charging
`current when the battery exceeds a threshold. Koenck does the
`same thing, but it does it in a different way.
` On -- same thing on the discharge side. We've
`referred to the discharge FET aspect of Doi to address the
`discharge being set to zero as a mechanism for doing that in
`light of Koenck teaching that the discharge is set to off when
`the battery is overheating. The combination as a whole
`teaches that Koenck shows the battery being -- the charge and
`the discharge being set to off when the battery is
`overheating. That's in Koenck.
` In Doi, it's a mechanism for facilitating that, for
`using switches to actually effect that discharge. That's the
`way that we presented it in the petition. In the reply, we
`needed to address the fact of what happens to these different
`FET switches at different states of the battery. Again, the
`overheat condition, we believe that Doi teaches that they are
`both set to off. Those change depending on the other
`conditions in the battery, but that's not what we relied in
`
`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
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`the petition. We relied on the overheat conditions
`specifically, which teach us prohibiting charging and
`discharging when the battery is overheating.
` JUDGE QUINN: So what do you need Doi, exactly, to
`provide in your combination?
` MR. PARSONS: What we relied on for Doi is the idea
`that -- what we felt was missing from Koenck is that Koenck
`talks about the battery discharging when the battery is
`overheating and then setting that discharge -- that battery
`discharge condition to off. That's in the pseudocode. We
`wanted to provide facts on the record showing a mechanism that
`was known to prior art to be able to do that.
` And that's what we're relying on Doi for is the idea
`that you can use switches -- that a controller can control
`switches to turn off the currents in the discharge --
`specifically in the discharge aspect, because there's no
`teaching in Koenck specifically as to how you'd go about
`making that discharge set to off. It just says that it
`happens in software and it relies on the knowledge of the
`person of ordinary skill in order to make that happen.
` We wanted facts on the record to actually show a
`method of that actually happening and that's why we proposed
`the combination.
` JUDGE QUINN: So if we don't agree with you that in
`Doi the operation is, as you now characterized it, as both
`
`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
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`transistors and off. You will have the condition under
`discharge where 25 is on and 25 -- 25 is on and 24 will be
`off. What is your response?
` MR. PARSONS: Well, I'd say that I would go back to
`Paragraph 51 of Doi where if the battery is too hot, both of
`them are prohibited. The whole point of the heat condition
`and the Doi reacting to the heat condition is to protect the
`battery from a temperature -- from too much temperature. And
`the reason that happens is because too much current is either
`being provided to or from the battery. So given that Doi
`teaches that both charging and discharging are prohibited at
`60 degrees --
` JUDGE QUINN: What paragraph is that?
` MR. PARSONS: Paragraph 151. It's on Slide 13 on
`our demonstratives as well.
` JUDGE QUINN: And that goes back to my first
`question. I started this line of questions, this -- you did
`not rely on this sentence at all for any operation. And even
`that, it doesn't say anything about what the transistors are
`doing when you reach 60 degrees.
` MR. PARSONS: Correct. It -- correct. But if you
`look at Paragraph 10, specifically, which is on Slide 14.
`Paragraph 10 describes the heat generation condition and the
`fact that when there's a heat generation condition that the --
`both FETs -- that the FET used for charging is set off and the
`
`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
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`FET used for discharging is set to off.
` A heat generation condition is just one of the
`abnormal conditions and we did reference this specifically in
`our petition. So when there's a heat generation condition,
`both FETs are turned off and that's what Paragraph 10 says.
` JUDGE QUINN: And what about the alternative reading
`of Paragraph 10, that it's -- that when you're in the charging
`state, you turn FET for charging to off and when you're in the
`discharging state, you turn the discharge FET to off? Not
`that both of them are off.
` MR. PARSONS: Well, I -- that would be a situation
`where the battery would both be charging and discharging at
`the same time. I would propose that it -- the point of the
`heat protection is to protect the battery from overheating.
`And when it's overheating, the system defaults to not one, it
`would do either of them. That's the way that we've
`interpreted Doi. I will your answer your question once I have
`a minute to look up the specifics of showing that they happen
`at the same time.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` MR. PARSONS: Okay. Thank you.
` I'd like to reserve some time for rebuttal, so if
`the board doesn't have any questions about the combination of
`Koenck and Doi and how we've proposed that, because I think
`we've just discussed that, I'd like to specifically move on to
`
`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
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`the last element that we'd like to discuss, which is Claims 5
`and 6, specifically. The board indicated in the institution
`decision that we now present our burden with regards to 5 and
`6. I think what would be helpful here is to turn to Slide 23,
`which shows the limitation for Claim 5 and the limitations for
`Claim 6.
` What we've highlighted here that we want to
`specifically discuss is the idea that Claim 5 requires setting
`a charge current to a maximum value and that that maximum
`value is set when the temperature is lower than a second
`predetermined threshold. In other words, there's a maximum
`value that exists for a predetermined threshold and then that
`-- and that would be a maximum specific to that threshold.
` Claim 6 recites the more narrow version of that,
`which is the idea that there is a maximum value that can be
`applied when the battery is below a certain threshold, and
`that threshold is where the battery can receive the charging
`current at that maximum charging value. We've -- in the
`petition we relied on Koenck. And before we go into that, I
`think it would be helpful to actually look at the '203 Patent.
` In Column 6, Table 1 of the '203 Patent, it provides
`a number of examples of what Claim 5 is stating. You'll see
`in Table 1 it'll have a temperature range of, for example,
`above 60 degrees, and in that situation the charge of current
`is set to zero. For a temperature range of 55 to 60 the
`
`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
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`current is set to 0.5. For a temperature range of 45 to 55
`the current is set to 1. For under 45 degrees the current is
`set to 2.
` Based on the Table 1 and the way that the claim is
`set forth in 5, we believe that what this is -- Claim 5 is
`trying to capture is the idea that for a specific temperature
`range, you would apply a maximum current that would be
`appropriate for that temperature. And so the way that we have
`put this -- set this forth in the petition is we relied on two
`teachings of Koenck, primarily.
` The first one is that Koenck teaches -- as we've
`shown in Slide 24, the first excerpt from Koenck that we show
`that's highlighted is based -- is it says that -- it wants to
`achieve the maximum charging rate, but it wants to do that as
`a function of the battery's temperature. So the whole point
`of Koenck is to charge the battery as fast as possible, but
`taking into consideration the temperature value -- the
`temperature of the battery.
` The second excerpt of Koenck that we've referred to
`in the petition is on -- is at the bottom of Slide 24. And
`this is in reference to the over-under temperature protection.
`But what this -- what the highlighted portion shows, it shows,
`essentially, four different zones. The zone number 1 is under
`10 degrees where Koenck will apply a triple charge based on
`temperature. The second range would be 10 to 55 degrees
`
`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
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00523
`Patent 6,661,203 B2
`
`Celsius where the battery is operating normally and it will
`receive a normal charging current. Above 55 degrees to 70
`degrees, that we've already discussed, the battery would,
`again, apply a triple charge, because the battery i
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
