UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`---------------
`PEAG LLC (d/b/a JLab Audio), AUDIO PARTNERSHIP LLC and AUDIO
`PARTNERSHIP PLC (d/b/a Cambridge Audio)
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VARTA MICROBATTERY GMBH,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent Nos.
`9,153,835
`9,496,581
`9,799,913
`9,799,858
`
`IPRs
` IPR2020-01211
`IPR2020-01212
`IPR2020-01213
`IPR2020-01214
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
`WILLIAM H. GARDNER
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 1
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................... 2
`III.
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE (‘835 PATENT) .......................................................... 4
`a) Ground 1: Claims 1-12 are Obvious over Kaun in view of Kobayashi .............................. 4
`i) A POSA would have been motivated to combine Kaun and Kobayashi ........................ 4
`ii) A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success ...................................... 8
`iii)
`Kaun in view of Kobayashi discloses a “button cell” ............................................... 12
`iv)
`Kaun in view of Kobayashi discloses “insulating means”........................................ 14
`v) Kaun in view of Kobayashi discloses “closed” without being beaded over ................. 14
`b) Ground 2: Claims 1-12 are obvious over Kobayashi in view of Kaun ............................. 16
`i) A POSA would have been motivated to combine Kobayashi in view of Kaun ........... 16
`ii) A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success .................................... 17
`iii)
`Kobayashi in view of Kaun discloses “insulating means”........................................ 17
`c) Ground 3: Claims 1-12 are obvious over Kobayashi in view of Ryou ............................. 17
`i) A POSA Would have been motivated to combine Kobayashi in view of Ryou ........... 17
`ii) A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success .................................... 18
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE (‘581 PATENT) ........................................................ 19
`IV.
`a) Ground 1: Claims 1-12 are obvious over Kobayashi in view of the knowledge of a POSA
`
`19
`
`This combination discloses all the elements of the claims. .......................................... 19
`i)
`ii) A POSA would have been motivated to combine Kobayashi with general knowledge.
`
`19
`A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. ............................... 20
`iii)
`Claims 2-12 would have been obvious based on this combination. ......................... 20
`iv)
`b) Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-12 are obvious over Kaun in view the knowledge of a
`POSA ........................................................................................................................................ 20
`i)
`This combination discloses all the elements of the claims. .......................................... 20
`ii) A POSA would have been motivated to combine Kaun with general knowledge. ...... 21
`iii)
`A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. ............................... 21
`iv)
`Claims 2-12 would have been obvious based on this combination. ......................... 22
`c) Ground 3: Claims 1-12 are obvious over Kaun in view Kobayashi and the knowledge of a
`POSA ........................................................................................................................................ 22
`i)
`This combination discloses all the elements of the claims. .......................................... 22
`
`ii
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 2
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`ii) A POSA would have been motivated to combine Kobayashi and Kaun with general
`knowledge. ............................................................................................................................ 22
`iii)
`A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. ............................... 22
`iv)
`Claims 2-12 would have been obvious based on this combination. ......................... 23
`V. PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE (‘913 PATENT) ............................................................ 23
`a) Ground 1: Claims 1-12 are obvious over Kobayashi in view of the knowledge of a POSA
`
`23
`
`This combination discloses all the elements of the claims. .......................................... 23
`i)
`ii) A POSA would have been motivated to combine Kobayashi with general knowledge.
`
`24
`A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. ............................... 24
`iii)
`Claims 2-12 would have been obvious based on this combination. ......................... 24
`iv)
`b) Ground 2: Claims 1-12 are obvious over Kaun in view of Kobayashi and the knowledge
`of a POSA ................................................................................................................................. 24
`i)
`This combination discloses all the elements of the claims. .......................................... 24
`ii) A POSA would have been motivated to combine Kobayashi and Kaun with general
`knowledge. ............................................................................................................................ 25
`iii)
`A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. ............................... 25
`iv)
`Claims 2-12 would have been obvious based on this combination. ......................... 25
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE (‘858 PATENT) ........................................................ 25
`VI.
`a) Ground 1: Claims 1-8 are obvious over Kobayashi in view of Kwon .............................. 25
`i) Kobayashi in view of Kwon discloses “at least one of the conductors is a metal foil.” 26
`ii) Kobayashi in view of Kwon discloses “the metal foil connecting to the respective
`housing half bears flat on one of lateral end sides of the electrode separator assembly
`winding, and the metal foils are shielded from lateral end sides of the winding by insulating
`elements.”.............................................................................................................................. 27
`iii)
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Kobayashi and Kwon ................. 29
`iv)
`Claims 2-8 would have been obvious based on Kobayashi in view of Kwon .......... 30
`b) Ground 2: Claims 1-8 are obvious over Kaun in view of Kobayashi and further in view of
`Kwon ......................................................................................................................................... 31
`i) Kaun in view of Kobayashi and Kwon discloses a “button cell.” ................................ 31
`ii) Kaun in view of Kobayashi and Kwon discloses “the metal foils are shielded from
`lateral end sides of the winding by insulating elements.” ..................................................... 31
`iii)
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Kaun in view of Kobayashi and
`Kwon 32
`iv)
`A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success ................................ 33
`
`iii
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 3
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`b)
`
`c) Ground 3: claims 1-8 are obvious over Kobayashi in view of Kwon and the knowledge of
`a POSA...................................................................................................................................... 33
`VII.
`PATENT OWNER’S CONTINGENT MOTIONS TO AMEND .................................... 34
`a)
`Substitute Claims of the ‘835 Patent ................................................................................. 34
`i) Obvious over Kaun in view of Kannou and General Knowledge of a POSA .............. 34
`Substitute Claims of the ‘581 Patent ................................................................................. 46
`i) Obvious in view of Kaun and Kannou and General Knowledge of a POSA ............... 46
`Substitute Claims of the ‘913 Patent ................................................................................. 48
`Substitute Claim 9 – Obvious in view of Kaun and Kannou ........................................ 48
`i)
`ii) Substitute Claim 12 – Obvious in view of Kaun and Kannou ...................................... 49
`iii)
`Substitute Claim 14 – Obvious in view of Kaun and Kannou .................................. 52
`Substitute Claims of the ‘858 Patent ................................................................................. 53
`i) Obvious over Kaun in view of Kobayashi and Kwon .................................................. 53
`ii) Obvious in view of Kannou, in view of Kaun and either Kwon or Kawamura ............ 59
`VIII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ......................................................................................... 67
`IX.
`OATH ............................................................................................................................... 68
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`iv
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 4
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is William H. Gardner. My CV is available as Exhibit 1004. I am
`
`presently employed as Senior Director at QuantumScape.
`
`2.
`
`I provided my credentials and background in my earlier declaration with respect to
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 9,153,835 (“the ‘835 Patent”), 9,496,581 (“the ‘581 Patent”), 9,799,913 (“the
`
`‘913 Patent”), and 9,799,858 (“the ‘858 patent”). That material has not materially changed since
`
`my last declaration, dated July 7, 2020 (“Original Declaration” or Ex. 1003), and I incorporate that
`
`information into this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by Baker Botts L.L.P. (“Counsel”) on behalf of PEAG LLC
`
`d/b/a JLab Audio, Audio Partnership LLC and Audio Partnership PLC d/b/a Cambridge Audio
`
`(“Petitioner”) to offer opinions relating to Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response filed in
`
`each of the inter partes reviews concerning the ‘835 patent, the ‘913 patent, the ‘581 patent, and
`
`the ‘858 Patent (collectively, the “challenged patents”). I am also providing opinions related to
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motions to Amend filed in each of the same
`
`matters.
`
`4.
`
`For the purposes of this Declaration, I have reviewed the following:
`
` The challenged patents;
`
` Each of the Patent Owner’s Responses: Patent Owner’s Response for the ‘835
`
`Patent, IPR2020-01212, Paper 15 (“POR1”); Patent Owner’s Response for the ‘581
`
`Patent, IPR2020-01211, Paper 16 (“POR2”); Patent Owner’s Response for the ‘913
`
`1
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 5
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`Patent, IPR2020-01214, Paper 14 (“POR3”); Patent Owner’s Response for the ‘858
`
`Patent, IPR2020-01213, Paper 15 (“POR4”)
`
` Each of the Patent Owner’s Contingent Motions to Amend: Contingent Motion to
`
`Amend for the ‘835 Patent, IPR2020-01212, Paper 14 (“CMTA1”); Contingent
`
`Motion to Amend for the ‘581 Patent, IPR2020-01211, Paper 15 (“CMTA2”);
`
`Contingent Motion to Amend for the ‘913 Patent, IPR2020-01213, Paper 15
`
`(“CMTA3”); Contingent Motion to Amend for the ‘858 Patent, IPR2020-01213,
`
`Paper 16 (“CMTA4”);
`
`
`
`JP Patent Publication No. 2003/031266 to Kannou, et al. (“Kannou,” Ex. 1039);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,575,830 to Kawamura et al. (“Kawamura,” Ex. 1040).
`
`5.
`
`I have considered these materials through the lens of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSA”) related to the challenged patents at the time of the earliest purported priority date
`
`of the patents, which I understand to be February 9, 2009. I am still unaware of any claim by the
`
`Patent Owner that any of the challenged patents are entitled to an earlier priority date.
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. “button cell”
`
`6.
`
`The Patent Owner has proposed a construction of “a small, generally round and flat
`
`battery” as appropriate for the term “button cell.” Even if the term even requires construction, I
`
`disagree with the proposed construction as vague and not supported by its own expert.
`
`7.
`
`To the extent the term require construction, it should be construed to mean “a
`
`battery having a height less than or equal to a diameter.” This is consistent with a POSA’s general
`
`2
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 6
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`understanding of the term, and VARTA’s own Expert has agreed with this construction.
`
`Deposition of Dr. Martin Peckerar Day 1 at 172:2-9 (Ex. 1034).
`
`B. “insulating means”
`
`8.
`
`I agree in part with Petitioners’ construction. Petitioners have proposed a
`
`construction which covers the structure recited in the specification and as understood by a POSA.
`
`However, I do not agree with the proposed structures that the Patent Owner alleges should be
`
`covered by claim, as the specification only corresponds a very limited number of structures with
`
`the proposed function.
`
`9.
`
`In reviewing the specification, I note that there are two structures identified which
`
`correspond with the “insulating means” recited by the claims. Specifically, both the ‘835 patent
`
`and the ‘581 patent identify a “flat layer composed of plastic, for example, a plastic film,” e.g.,
`
`835 Patent at 6:31-32, and “thin plastic disks,” e.g., ‘835 Patent at 11:19 as the structures which
`
`corresponding with the function of “an insulating means.”
`
`C. “closed without being beaded over”
`
`10.
`
`Regarding VARTA’s construction of the phrase “closed without being beaded
`
`over” to mean “closed at overlapping sides of the housing cup and top without a bend in the cut
`
`end of the housing cup extending over a top edge area of the housing top,” I disagree, at least, with
`
`the inclusion of the phrase “at overlapping sides of the housing cup and top.” Nothing in the
`
`specification of the ‘835 Patent requires the sides of the battery cell to overlap. Rather, a POSA
`
`would understand the purpose of being “closed” in the context of a button cell is to ensure that
`
`there is a hermetic seal between the housing halves of the battery, which prevents leakage of
`
`internal components as well as infiltration of outside contaminants, such as air or water.
`
`3
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 7
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`D. “connected to one another by at least one flat separator”
`
`11.
`
`In spite of VARTA’s attempt to broaden this term, I affirm the construction I
`
`proposed in my original declaration which states that the phrase “connected to one another by at
`
`least one flat separator” should be construed to mean that the electrodes are “laminated, adhesively
`
`bonded, or otherwise bonded to one another by at least one flat separator” as this construction is
`
`consistent with the embodiments disclosed within the patent specification itself. Ex. 1003 at 41-
`
`42.
`
`III.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE (‘835 PATENT)
`
`a) Ground 1: Claims 1-12 are Obvious over Kaun in view of Kobayashi
`
`12.
`
`A POSA would understand Kaun would be pertinent to a miniaturized button cell,
`
`and that any issues applicable to larger, higher powered batteries would not exist on a scale that
`
`would justify the use of Kaun’s spiral wound assembly. Kaun explicitly states that “the electrode
`
`assembly 22 can have any desired thickness or diameter,” Ex. 1005 ¶ [0108], and while it discloses
`
`certain high-power applications that might make certain embodiments desirable, such high-power
`
`embodiments do not prevent a POSA from recognizing certain advantages which can be obtained
`
`in using certain teachings of Kaun in combinations with Kobayashi and other art references, as
`
`discussed below.
`
`i)
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Kaun and
`Kobayashi
`
`13.
`
`In the Response, Patent Owner alleges that “[a]s shown in FIG. 6 of Kaun itself,
`
`the edges of the z-shaped separator . . . need not overlap and can simply abut one another.” POR1
`
`at 26. However, to support this allegation, the Patent owners rely upon the fact that Figure 6 of
`
`4
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 8
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`Kaun, reproduced as annotated from Patent Owner’s Response, below, shows the separator
`
`material of Kaun as being connected perfectly without any gap or overlap between the edges.
`
`14.
`
`However, a POSA would recognize that such a drawing is exemplary, and not
`
`practicable for actual commercial systems. Either, the edges of the separator material would need
`
`to be overlapped or a gap would be created between the edges. While a POSA would recognize
`
`that manufacturing could result in an assembly having a clear butt joint (as shown above) at
`
`discrete points, it would be prohibitively difficult to ensure a clear butt joint along the entire
`
`assembly.
`
`15.
`
`Kaun recognizes that an overlap would be preferable to the creation of butt joints
`
`alleged in Figure 6 above. Specifically, Kaun discloses that “[p]referably, the separator edges can
`
`overlap, be joined together with glue that is applied during the rolling operation, or both to ensure
`
`complete separation of the successive electrode layers.” Ex. 1005 ¶ [0108]. This ensures that the
`
`safest form of manufacture is chosen, which allows for a reduced risk of indirect contact between
`
`electrode layers.
`
`5
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 9
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`16.
`
`Patent Owner further contends that “a relatively small gap would simply form a
`
`void to be filled by electrolyte, adhesive, or by separator material squeezed and compressed into
`
`the gap.” POR1 at 27. However, such a configuration ignores the actual practical functioning of
`
`batteries of this type. Allowing a gap to exist between separator edges allows for electrode
`
`materials to indirectly contact one another through the creation of dendrites or other conductive
`
`material generated through normal operation of a cell.
`
`17.
`
`Failure of a lithium ion battery, for example, can occur without direct contact
`
`between the electrode layers. With a separator interposed between the electrode layers, the
`
`electrodes are limited to only allow ionic contact between the electrodes, which is required for
`
`proper functioning of the battery. If other materials are interposed between the electrode layers,
`
`for example the “electrolyte” or “adhesive” alleged by the Patent Owners, POR1 at 27, then the
`
`layers could achieve electrical conduction in addition to merely ionic conduction, which is
`
`precisely what causes a short within a battery. As lithium ion batteries are charged and discharged,
`
`it can cause a buildup of materials on the negative electrode surface, commonly called dendrites.
`
`Separator materials are typically manufactured with highly tortuous, submicron size pores so as to
`
`minimize likelihood of penetration by such build-ups. Other materials, though, cannot block this
`
`build up while allowing ions to pass and may allow for direct contact between the electrode layers.
`
`Any POSA would recognize these risks, and to reduce the risk of such a short, would be forced to
`
`overlap the separator layers (if assembling the battery according to Kaun).
`
`18.
`
`Further, a POSA observing these two references would consider Kobayashi to
`
`disclose a further refinement over the button cell of Kaun. Specifically, Kaun discloses that “the
`
`individual thickness of [the electrode and separator layers] can be less than 0.1 mm.” Ex. 1005 ¶
`
`[0116]. Kobayashi, similarly, discloses a separator having a “thickness of 22 μm,” i.e. 0.022 mm.
`
`6
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 10
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`Ex. 1006 ¶ [0032]. As such, a person preparing the battery of Kaun would be motivated to combine
`
`the components of Kobayashi, as not only does it disclose a separator thickness within the range
`
`suggested by Kaun (less than 0.1 mm) but discloses a thickness that is not expressly disclosed in
`
`Kaun and has no overlap or gap, a weakness of Kaun which would be recognized by a POSA.
`
`Patent owner has previously suggested that because Kaun, broadly, discloses that the thickness
`
`could be less than 0.1 mm, a POSA would not be motivated to combine with Kobayashi. However,
`
`the opposite is true. Because Kaun discloses that a POSA would preferably use a separator with a
`
`thickness less than 0.1 mm, they would be greatly interested in Kobayashi, since its thickness is
`
`less than 0.1 mm and it provides a thickness that is almost 1/5 the thickness of anything that is
`
`expressly described in Kaun.
`
`19.
`
`Patent Owner also asserts that “[t]he resulting short current path was Kaun’s
`
`solution to the problems of resistance and heat generation.” POR1 at 32. However, the short
`
`current paths of Kaun are intended to solve problems of resistance that can occur in “high powered
`
`batteries.” Ex. 1005 ¶ [0018]. Kaun eliminates resistance down the length of current collectors
`
`(problem in cells with very long current collector, which are discussed in certain embodiments of
`
`Kaun). Relatively short electrodes, such as those in the cells of Kobayashi, experience lower
`
`voltage drop along the length of the current collector, and so these same problems simply do not
`
`exist on a scale that would require the use of the spiral wound assembly according to Kaun. A
`
`POSA would recognize these distinct use cases when observing the two references, and that on
`
`lower energy scale, the use of a spiral wound electrode assembly according to Kobayashi could be
`
`preferable, for the reasons discussed above. Further, Kaun explicitly discloses that “a piece of
`
`conductive material can be interposed between the electrodes 12p and 12n and cups 28p and 28n.”
`
`Id. ¶ [0122].
`
`7
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 11
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`ii)
`
`A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success
`
`20.
`
`Patent Owner misinterprets the basic principles of Kaun and Kobayashi, which are
`
`not changed by the combination.
`
`21.
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, a POSA would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kaun and Kobayashi. See POR1 at 33-35.
`
`According to the current Ground, a POSA would begin with the cell according to Kaun and modify
`
`it to use the spiral wound electrode assembly of Kobayashi. Such modification would be well
`
`within the skill of a POSA, and they would be motivated to make the combination for the reasons
`
`set forth above.
`
`22.
`
`Patent Owner alleges that a POSA would have faced “a number of fundamental
`
`design challenges” which would render such modifications impossible. Id. at 33. I disagree with
`
`that statement.
`
`8
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 12
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`23.
`
`First, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, Kaun does not require “a center
`
`fastener within its housing.” Id. While one embodiment disclosed does include a central fastener
`
`(which will be discussed later), Kaun also discloses an embodiment which does not require a
`
`central fastener, where appropriate pressure is otherwise provided. As seen in Figure 7A of Kaun,
`
`reproduced below, no fastener need be included in the cell, according to Kaun.
`
`24.
`
`According to Kaun:
`
`[a] suitable containment housing 28, such as that shown in FIG. 7A,
`is disposed around the electrode assembly 22, to isolate the positive
`and negative electrodes 12p and 12n electrically from each other
`thereby forming a cell 30. The housing 28 also serves to contain the
`electrode assembly 22 and seal the contents of the cell from the
`atmosphere. . . . the housing includes two cups 28p and 28n joined
`together, and electrically isolated from each other with a gasket 32
`located around the periphery of the cups 28p and 28n. Preferably,
`the “U” shaped gasket 32 is made of polyethylene.
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶ [0109].
`
`25.
`
`Clearly, in this embodiment, a central fastener is not required, and rather the cell
`
`housing is held together without a central fastener. In this embodiment, the inclusion of the
`
`electrode assembly of Kobayashi would require minimal adjustments to the housing, as the
`
`housing halves of Kaun could simply be added around the electrode assembly, which would be
`
`9
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 13
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`well within the skill of a POSA at this time, requiring only minimal adjustments to the size of the
`
`cups. See infra ¶¶ 28-29.
`
`26.
`
`Second, even if an embodiment of Kaun requiring a fastening connection is used,
`
`such a connection could be integrated with the winding core of Kobayashi with little difficulty.
`
`Specifically, Kaun discloses that “[t]he electrode assembly 22 encircles the fastener 60 when the
`
`cell is assembled in the manner related previously for the center core 24.” Ex. 1005 ¶ [0112].
`
`27. With such an embodiment, it would be easy to integrate the fastener of Kaun with
`
`the winding core of Kobayashi. In fact, the two would serve similar functions: ensuring the cell
`
`housing remains in place while also providing support for the electrode assembly. For example, it
`
`would require minimal experimentation or skill for a POSA to modify the electrode assembly of
`
`Kobayashi to include the fastening components of Kaun. The winding core of Kobayashi already
`
`includes a number of additional components which have been integrated, including an “insulting
`
`member” and “electrode terminal plates.” The inclusion of fastening components within the core
`
`would have been a minor addition, well within the skill of a POSA to include, as outlined below.
`
`28.
`
`I have considered the specific steps that would be required to incorporate the two
`
`reference with one another, and believe the steps to be relatively minor and within the skill of a
`
`10
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 14
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`POSA. Beginning with the electrode assembly of Kobayashi, a thru-hole (shown in red, blue and
`
`green below) would need to be incorporated into the terminal components, 4a and 5a, and extend
`
`through the winding axis core of the assembly 7l, as shown in annotated Figures 7 and 8 of
`
`Kobayashi, below.
`
`29.
`
`Once this thru-hole has been incorporated into the assembly of Kobayashi, a POSA
`
`would simply need to adjust the sizing of the housing of Kaun in order to be appropriately sized
`
`to fit the electrode assembly of Kobayashi. In the annotated figures of Kaun and Kobayashi,
`
`below, the housing of Kaun (shown in orange) can be scaled to fit around the electrode assembly
`
`of Kobayashi. Once the sizes are matched, it would be simple to incorporate the central fastener
`
`11
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 15
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`structure of Kaun with Kobayashi, as it could be placed within the thru-hole (shown in green
`
`below) created in Kobayashi. These changes are quite minor, and a POSA would easily be able to
`
`incorporate them with minimal experimentation and testing.
`
`30. While Kaun contains a venting mechanism in some embodiments, they are
`
`otherwise sealed at all times during functioning, Ex. 1005 ¶ [0101], as admitted by VARTA’s own
`
`expert. Ex. 1034 at 238:1-3 (“In others words, while the cell, of course, is closed during normal
`
`operations . . .”). Thus, a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying
`
`Kaun and Kobayashi.
`
`iii) Kaun in view of Kobayashi discloses a “button cell”
`
`31.
`
`Both Kobayashi and Kaun expressly disclose button cells. Kobayashi discloses that
`
`“an object of the present invention is to improve heavy load characteristics of small batteries such
`
`12
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 16
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`as button cells and coin cells without impairing productivity.” Ex. 1006 ¶ [0008]. Kobayashi
`
`further shows an exemplary button cell in Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`32.
`
`Further, Kaun also expressly discloses that “[t]he invention also provides a button-
`
`type cell housing.” Ex. 1005 ¶ [0084]. The Patent Owner asserts that the features recited “would
`
`not be considered a ‘button cell’ by a POSA,” POR1 at 35, however, this is incorrect. Even
`
`according to the Patent Owner’s own proposed construction, which is unduly narrow and vague,
`
`that a button cell is a “small, generally round and flat battery,” id., Kaun still discloses a button
`
`cell. It even contemplates electrode assemblies and housing of various sizes (“As will be readily
`
`apparent to those skilled in the art, the electrode assembly 22 can have any desired thickness or
`
`diameter.” Ex. 1005 ¶ [0108]).
`
`33.
`
`Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Patent Owner’s contention that Kaun
`
`does not disclose a button cell is true (which I do not believe to be the case), a POSA would have
`
`no difficulty in miniaturizing the components of Kaun to fit around the electrode assembly of
`
`Kobayashi. The only modifications necessary, for the sake of creating a button cell, would be
`
`reducing the size of the housing of Kaun, which would be well within the skill of a POSA to
`
`accomplish.
`
`13
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 17
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`iv) Kaun in view of Kobayashi discloses “insulating means”
`
`34.
`
`As discussed above, in Section III.a)i), the proposed combination of Kaun and
`
`Kobayashi would require combining the electrode assembly of Kobayashi with the housing of
`
`Kaun. Given this configuration, it is clear that the electrode assembly of Kobayashi discloses an
`
`insulating means, as required by this claim. As such, the Patent Owner’s contentions that a POSA
`
`would not seek to modify the assembly of Kaun is not convincing. Specifically, the contention
`
`that “a POSA would have recognized the criticality of maintaining the short current paths in Kaun”
`
`is not convincing at least for the reasons discussed above. Specifically, those current paths are
`
`only critical, according to Kaun, for high-power applications, as discussed above, and a POSA
`
`would understand that they are not critical for certain applications of the battery, in particular one
`
`where the electrode assembly of Kobayashi would be used.
`
`35.
`
`The Patent Owner doesn’t appear to make any contention that Kobayashi does not
`
`disclose an insulating means. In particular, Kobayashi discloses “[t]he winding member 6 . . . is
`
`provided with a winding core axis 7, and insulation plates 8 and 9 (first and second insulating
`
`members).” Ex. 1006 ¶ [0030].
`
`36.
`
`A POSA would clearly have been motivated to incorporate Kobayashi’s insulating
`
`elements into Kaun’s cell, particularly because Kobayashi discloses a safe and productive
`
`electrode assembly for battery cells. Ex. id. ¶ [0044].
`
`v) Kaun in view of Kobayashi discloses “closed” without being beaded
`over
`
`37.
`
`Patent Owner contends that because Kaun is designed to rupture under certain high
`
`pressure situations, that it is not “closed.” Specifically, Patent Owner claims that “[t]he peripheral
`
`gasket of Kaun does not, consequently, close the cell,” since it is designed to be a “non-catastrophic
`
`14
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1041, p. 18
`JLab/Cambridge v. Varta, 2020-01212
`
`

`

`means to relieve gas pressure,” in certain scenarios. POR1 at 39. Such an interpretation goes
`
`against any reasonable interpretation of the disclosure of Kaun.
`
`38.
`
`Specifically, such an interpretation disregards other disclosures within Kaun, such
`
`as “[t]he housing also serves to contain the electrode assembly 22 and seal the contents of the cell
`
`from the atmosphere.” Ex. 1005 ¶ [0109]. During most normal functioning of the cell, it remains
`
`sealed from the atmosphere. Only upon the application of certain conditions does the internal
`
`pressure of gases within the cell cause gases to vent. However, during such events, Kaun considers
`
`that “[t]he specified limit for internal pressure is handled by release via the peripheral gasket which
`
`can reseal after an event. Id. ¶ [0091] (emphasis added). Alternatively, Kaun clearly discloses an
`
`embodiments in which “a pressure-release seal is not required.” Id. ¶ [0120].
`
`39.
`
`If a battery which, upon application of significant internal pressure, would be
`
`considered not “closed” at other times, than almost no battery could be considered closed. Any
`
`battery, when subjected to certain pressures, would leak or burst. Kaun, while it does contain a
`
`venting mechanism, is otherwise sealed at all times during functioning, and in fact discloses that
`
`“[t]he completed electrode ribbons are handled in a dry room atmosphere through cell winding
`
`and assembly into the button-like, peripherally sealed (airtight) enclosures for each cell.” Id. ¶
`
`[0101]. A POSA would clearly understand the cell accord