`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM H. GARDNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. MATERIALS AND OTHER INFROMATION CONSIDERED .......................................... 3
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .................................................................................................. 5
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ..................................................................................... 6
`A. Legal Standard for Prior Art ....................................................................................... 6
`B. Legal Standard for Obviousness ................................................................................. 7
`C. Legal Standard for Claim Construction .................................................................... 10
`V. RELEVANT TIMEFRAME ................................................................................................. 13
`VI. LEVEL OF SKILL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART................................. 14
`VII. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 15
`A. Spiral Wound Electrode Assemblies ........................................................................ 18
`B. Cell Housing ............................................................................................................. 20
`C.
`Insulation................................................................................................................... 25
`D. Output Conductor...................................................................................................... 26
`E. Welding of Output Conductor .................................................................................. 26
`VIII. THE ‘835 PATENT .............................................................................................................. 28
`IX. THE ’581 PATENT ............................................................................................................. 30
`X. THE ‘913 PATENT .............................................................................................................. 32
`XI. THE ‘858 PATENT .............................................................................................................. 34
`XII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................. 36
`A. “insulating means” .................................................................................................... 36
`B. “closed without being beaded over” ......................................................................... 38
`C. “connected to one another by at least one flat separator” ......................................... 41
`XIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART..................................................................................... 46
`A.
`Japanese Patent Publication No. 2007-294111 to Kobayashi (“Kobayashi”) .......... 46
`B. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0233212 to Kaun (“Kaun”)................................. 48
`C. EP Patent No. 1,886,364 to Ryou (“Ryou”) ............................................................. 52
`D. Korean Patent Pub. No. 10-2003-0087316 to Kwon (“Kwon”) ............................... 53
`INVALIDITY OF THE ‘835 PATENT ............................................................................ 57
`A. The ‘835 Patent Challenged Claims Would Have Been Obvious Over Either
`Kobayashi in View of Kaun or Kaun in View of Kobayashi. .......................................... 57
`B. The ‘835 Patent Challenged Claims Would Have Been Obvious Over Kobayashi in
`view of Ryou. .................................................................................................................. 100
`XV. INVALIDITY OF THE ‘581 PATENT .............................................................................. 116
`
`XIV.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`XVI.
`
`A. The ‘581 Patent Challenged Claims Would Have Been Obvious Over Kobayashi in
`View of Knowledge of a POSA. ..................................................................................... 116
`B. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-12 of the ‘581 Patent Would Have Been Obvious Over Kaun
`in View of Knowledge of a POSA .................................................................................. 125
`C. The ‘581 Patent Challenged Claims Would Have Been Obvious Over Kaun in view
`of Kobayashi And Knowledge of a POSA. .................................................................... 138
`INVALIDITY OF THE ‘913 PATENT .......................................................................... 141
`A. The ‘913 Patent Challenged Claims Would Have Been Obvious Over Kobayashi in
`View of Knowledge of a POSA. ..................................................................................... 141
`B. The ‘913 Patent Challenged Claims Would Have Been Obvious over Kaun in view
`of Kobayashi and Knowledge of a POSA. ...................................................................... 152
`INVALIDITY OF THE ‘858 PATENT ...................................................................... 158
`A. The ‘858 Challenged Claims Would Have Been Obvious Over Kaun in View of
`Kobayashi and Kwon. ..................................................................................................... 158
`B. The ‘858 Patent Challenged Claims Would Have Been Obvious Over Kobayashi in
`View of Kwon. ................................................................................................................ 174
`C. The ‘858 Patent Challenged Claims Would Have Been Obvious Over Kobayashi in
`view of Kwon and Knowledge of a POSA. .................................................................... 182
`XVIII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ................................................................................... 185
`XIX. OATH ............................................................................................................................. 185
`
`
`XVII.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is William H. Gardner. I am a Senior Director at
`
`QuantumScape and the Chief Battery Cell Engineering Expert at InoBat Auto. 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 provide technical assistance for the inter partes reviews of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,153,835 (“the ‘835 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,799,913 (“the ‘913
`
`Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 (“the ‘581 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,799,858 (“the ‘858 Patent”) (collectively, the “challenged patents”). This
`
`declaration sets forth my opinions on issues related to patentability of claims 1–12
`
`of the ‘835 Patent (“the ‘835 Patent Challenged Claims”), claims 1–12 of the ‘581
`
`Patent (“the ‘581 Patent Challenged Claims”), claims 1–8 of the ‘913 Patent (“the
`
`‘931 Patent challenged Claims”), and claims 1–8 of the ‘858 Patent (“the ‘858 Patent
`
`Challenged Claims”) (collectively, the “challenged claims”). I provide technical
`
`bases for these opinions as appropriate.
`
`2.
`
`This declaration contains statements of my opinions formed to date and
`
`the bases and reasons for those opinions. I make this declaration based upon my
`
`own personal knowledge and, if called upon to testify, would testify competently to
`
`the matters contained herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`For my efforts on this declaration I have been compensated at my
`
`standard rate of $425 per hour. My compensation is in no way contingent on the
`
`results of these or any other proceedings relating to the above-captioned patents.
`
`4.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, publications, and other relevant qualifications. My full resume is attached
`
`as Ex. 1004 (Gardner Resume).
`
`5.
`
`I am an expert in the field of battery design and manufacturing,
`
`including the internal and external structure of various types of batteries. I have
`
`worked in the field of battery manufacturing for over twenty years, where I have
`
`held various roles, including development and leadership positions.
`
`6.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Mechanical Engineering
`
`from Rutgers University in 1994.
`
`7.
`
`After receiving my Bachelor’s degree, I worked in industry as a product
`
`engineer at Duracell Inc. from 1994 through 1999. I then worked as an Engineering
`
`Manager at Double E Company from 1999 to 2005. Afterwards, I worked as a
`
`Senior Engineer in Product Development at Electrochem Commercial Power from
`
`2005 to 2006. Between 2006 and 2013, I worked in various positions at A123
`
`Systems, Inc., including positions as Senior Development Engineer, Director of Cell
`
`Product Development, and Director of Core Chemistry and Advanced Engineering.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`8.
`
`I have specific experience with various aspects of battery design and
`
`manufacture, both with respect to the internal structure of battery cells as well as the
`
`outer housing of such cells.
`
`9.
`
`For example, during my time at Duracell (1994-1999), I worked on the
`
`design and analysis of alkaline, lithium primary, and li-ion batteries including plastic
`
`battery seals, metal forming, and laser welding.
`
`10. Further, in my experience at A123 Systems, I researched and developed
`
`a variety of cylindrical and prismatic batteries. Specifically, while I was a Senior
`
`Development Engineer (2006–2010), I led development of 1st generation HEV
`
`cylindrical cells. While I was a Director of Cell Product Development (2011-2013),
`
`I led a team that produced 2nd generation cylindrical lithium-ion cell products.
`
`11.
`
`I am a named inventor on 12 patents which are directed to battery
`
`technology. Of particular relevance in the present petitions are U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,871,373 and 8,236,441, which each relate to batteries comprising spiral wound
`
`electrode assemblies contained within an outer cell housing.
`
`II.
`
`MATERIALS AND OTHER INFROMATION CONSIDERED
`12.
`I have considered information from various sources in forming my
`
`opinions. My opinions are based on my review of documents as well as my
`
`education, training, research, knowledge, and experience.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`13.
`
`I have reviewed and considered in the following, in addition to any
`
`other documents referred to in my declaration below, in forming my opinions:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ‘835 Patent and portions of its file history;
`
`The ‘581 Patent and portions of its file history;
`
`The ‘913 Patent and portions of its file history;
`
`The ‘858 Patent and portions of its file history;
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0233212 to Kaun (“Kaun”) (Ex.
`1005);
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. 2007/294111
`(“Kobayashi”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`to Kobayashi
`
`E.P. Patent No. 1,886,364 to Ryou (“Ryou”) (Ex. 1007);
`
`Korean Patent Publication No. 10-2003-008042 to Kwon (“Kwon”)
`(Ex. 1008);
`
`David Linden & Thomas B. Reddy, Handbook of Batteries 91 (3d ed.
`2002) (“Linden”) (Ex. 1009);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,236,441 to Gardner (“Gardner Patent”) (Ex. 1014);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,470,357 to Schmutz (“Schmutz”) (Ex. 1017);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,723,466 to Oogami (“Oogami”) (Ex. 1011);
`
`U.S. Patent Number 6,379,839 to Inoue (“Inoue”) (Ex. 1018);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,432,027 to Tuttle (“Tuttle”) (Ex. 1019);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,566,515 to Suzuki (“Suzuki”) (Ex. 1013);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,487,819 to Koga (“Koga”) (Ex. 1028)
`
`Abstract of DE 3638793A1 (“Sprengel”) (Ex. 1029);
`
`Laminated Lithium Ion Batteries with Improved Fast Charging
`Capability (“Frankenberger”) (Ex. 1030).
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`14. For the reasons set forth herein, it is my opinion that the claims of the
`
`challenged patents are either anticipated or rendered obvious as follows:
`
` ’835 Patent:
`o Claims 1-12 would have been obvious over Kobayashi in
`view of Kaun.
`o Claims 1-12 would have been obvious over Kaun in view of
`Kobayashi.
`o Claims 1-12 would have been obvious over Kobayashi in
`view of Ryou.
` ’581 Patent:
`o Claims 1-12 would have been obvious over Kobayashi in
`view of knowledge of a POSA.
`o Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-12 would have been obvious over
`Kaun in view of knowledge of a POSA.
`o Claims 1-12 would have been obvious over Kaun in view of
`Kobayashi and knowledge of a POSA.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IV.
`
` ’913 Patent:
`o Claims 1-8 would have been obvious over Kobayashi in
`view of knowledge of a POSA.
`o Claims 1-8 would have been obvious by Kaun in view of
`Kobayashi and knowledge of a POSA.
` ’858 Patent:
`o Claims 1-8 would have been obvious over Kaun in view of
`Kobayashi and Kwon.
`o Claims 1-8 would have been obvious over Kobayashi in
`view of Kwon.
`o Claim 1-8 would have been obvious over Kobayashi in view
`of Kwon and knowledge of a POSA.
`
`UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`15.
`I have applied the following legal principles provided to me by counsel
`
`in arriving at the opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`A. Legal Standard for Prior Art
`16.
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as prior
`
`art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to a
`
`challenged patent if the date of issuance of the patent is prior to the invention of the
`
`challenged patent.
`
`18.
`
`I further understand that a printed publication, such as a book or an
`
`article published in a magazine or trade publication, qualifies as prior art to a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`challenged patent if the date of publication is prior to the invention of the challenged
`
`patent.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to a
`
`challenged patent if the date of issuance of the patent is more than one year before
`
`the filing data of the challenged patent.
`
`20.
`
`I further understand that a printed publication, such as a book or an
`
`article published in a magazine or trade publication, constitutes prior art to a
`
`challenged patent if the publication occurs more than one year before the filing date
`
`of the challenged patent.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a U.S. patent qualifies as prior art to the challenged
`
`patent if the application for that patent was filed in the United States before the
`
`invention of the challenged patent.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that documents and materials that qualify as prior art can
`
`be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`B. Legal Standard for Obviousness
`23.
`I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding obviousness and
`
`understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art (“POSA”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a POSA provides a reference point from which the
`
`prior art and claimed invention should be viewed. This reference point prevents a
`
`POSA from using one’s hindsight in deciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`25.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`consideration of various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2)
`
`the differences between the prior art and the challenged claims, (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations
`
`such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art
`
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine,
`
`but other times the nexus linking two or more prior art references is simple common
`
`sense. I further understand that an obviousness analysis recognizes that market
`
`demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device,
`
`and a POSA would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`
`using the technique is obvious unless its practical application is beyond his or her
`
`skill.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`28.
`
`I also understand that practical and common-sense considerations
`
`should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a POSA
`
`looking to overcome a problem will often be able to fit the teachings of multiple
`
`publications together like pieces of a puzzle, although the prior art need not be like
`
`two puzzle pieces that must fit perfectly together. I understand that an obviousness
`
`analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps that a POSA
`
`would employ under the circumstances.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious by
`
`showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when there is a
`
`design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, a POSA has good reason to pursue the known
`
`options within his or her technical grasp because the result is likely the product not
`
`of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods may be proven obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and
`
`other market forces can prompt variation of it, either in the same field or a different
`
`one. If a POSA can implement a predictable variation, obviousness likely bars its
`
`patentability.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`31.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a POSA having the understanding and knowledge reflected in the
`
`prior art, would have been led to make the combination of elements recited in the
`
`claims.
`
`32. Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or
`
`problem in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a reason
`
`for combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed manner.
`
`33.
`
`I have written this report with the understanding that in an inter partes
`
`review obviousness must be shown by a preponderance of evidence.
`
`C. Legal Standard for Claim Construction
`34.
`I understand that before any invalidity analysis can be properly
`
`performed, the scope and meaning of the challenged claims must be determined by
`
`claim construction.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that a patent may include two types of claims, independent
`
`claims and dependent claims. I understand that an independent claim stands alone
`
`and includes only the limitations it recites. I understand that a dependent claim
`
`depends from an independent claim or another dependent claim. I understand that a
`
`dependent claim includes all the limitations that it recites in addition to the
`
`limitations recited in the claim (or claims) from which it depends.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`36.
`
`I understand that the claims of a patent define the scope of the rights
`
`conferred by the patent. I understand that because the claims point out and distinctly
`
`claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as their invention, claim
`
`construction analysis must begin with and is focused on the claim language itself.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that words or terms should be given their ordinary and
`
`accepted meaning unless it appears that the inventors were using them to mean
`
`something else. I understand that to determine whether a term has special meaning,
`
`the claims, the patent specification, and the prosecution history are particularly
`
`important, and may show that the inventor gave a term a particular definition or
`
`intentionally disclaimed, disavowed, or surrendered claim scope.
`
`38.
`
`In comparing the challenged claims to the prior art, I have carefully
`
`considered the patents and relevant file histories in light of the understanding of a
`
`POSA at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that, in construing a claim term, one should primarily rely
`
`on intrinsic patent evidence, which includes the words of the claims themselves, the
`
`remainder of the patent specification, and the prosecution history. I understand that
`
`extrinsic evidence, which is evidence external to the patent and the prosecution
`
`history, may also be useful in interpreting patent claims when the intrinsic evidence
`
`itself is insufficient. I understand that extrinsic evidence may include principles,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`concepts, terms, and other resources available to those of skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that a claim should be construed not only in the context of
`
`the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the
`
`entire patent, including the entire specification.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history of the patent as well as art
`
`incorporated by reference or otherwise cited during the prosecution history are also
`
`highly relevant in construing claim terms. For instance, art cited by or incorporated
`
`by reference may indicate how the inventor and others of skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention understood certain terms and concepts. Additionally, the
`
`prosecution history may show that the inventors disclaimed or disavowed claim
`
`scope or further explained the meaning of a claim term.
`
`42. With regard to extrinsic evidence, I understand that all evidence
`
`external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor
`
`testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, can also be considered. For example,
`
`technical dictionaries may indicate how one of skill in the art used or understood the
`
`claim terms. However, I understand that extrinsic evidence is considered to be less
`
`reliable than intrinsic evidence, and for that reason is generally given less weight
`
`than intrinsic evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`43.
`
`I also understand that in an inter partes review construing means-plus-
`
`function terms involves two steps: (1) identifying the claimed function(s) for the
`
`term and (2) identifying the structure that the specification associates with
`
`performing the claimed function(s). On the second step, I understand that the
`
`identified structure is the structure necessary to perform the claimed function and
`
`those structural features unnecessary to performing the claimed function need not be
`
`identified. I further understand (A) that the use of the term “means” creates a
`
`rebuttable presumption that a term is a means-plus-function term, a presumption that
`
`is rebutted only where sufficient structure for performing a claimed function is
`
`recited in the claim, and (B) that if a term does not use the word “means,” there is a
`
`rebuttable presumption that the term is not a means-plus-function limitation, but this
`
`presumption is rebutted where the limitation at issue recites a function and does not
`
`recite sufficiently definite structure for the performance of that function.
`
`V.
`
`RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`44. As mentioned above, I understand that claim construction and
`
`obviousness must be considered through the perspective of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time the invention was made.
`
`45.
`
`In this case, I see from the front page of the ‘835 Patent, ‘913 Patent,
`
`and the ‘581 Patent that the patent application leading to these three patents was first
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`filed on February 9, 2009. I considered the level of ordinary skill in the art on
`
`February 9, 2009.
`
`46. Further, I see from the front page of the ‘858 patent that the patent
`
`application leading to the ‘858 patent was first filed on June 18, 2009. I considered
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art on June 18, 2009.
`
`47.
`
`I am not aware of any claim by the Patent Owner that the ‘835, ‘913,
`
`‘581, and ‘858 Patents are entitled to an earlier priority date.
`
`VI.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`48.
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art of the challenged patents at the time of the claimed invention, I
`
`considered several things, including various prior art techniques related to the
`
`internal and external construction of button cell, cylindrical cell, and other relevant
`
`types of batteries, the types of problems associated with different types of battery
`
`compositions and constructions, and the rapidity with which innovations were made.
`
`I also considered the sophistication of the technologies involved, and the educational
`
`background and experience of those actively working in the field at the time. I also
`
`considered the level of education that would be necessary to understand the
`
`challenged patents . Finally, I placed myself back in the relevant period of time and
`
`considered the engineers and technicians that I have worked with and managed in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`the field of battery manufacturing. I came to the conclusion that a POSA of the
`
`challenged patents would have been a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical
`
`engineering, or a similar field such as materials engineering, chemical engineering,
`
`or physics with at least five years of experience in the field of battery development
`
`and manufacturing. A person with greater education (for example, a Master’s
`
`degree) but less practical experience (for example, about three years) may also meet
`
`this standard. Alternatively, a person with less education, but more relevant practical
`
`experience may also meet this standard.
`
`VII.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`49. The following provides the technology background of the invention
`
`disclosed in the challenged patents in the period leading up to the ‘835 Patent’s
`
`February 9, 2009 priority date.
`
`50. Generally, batteries generate power by means of an oxidation-reduction
`
`reaction that occurs within its housing. At a basic level, all batteries require at least
`
`three components in order to function: an anode (negative) electrode, which
`
`contributes electrons and is oxidized during discharge; a cathode (positive) electrode
`
`which accepts electrons and is reduced during discharge; and an electrolyte through
`
`which ions are transferred between the electrodes. See Ex. 1009 (Linden) at 1-2.
`
`This electrolyte can be composed of various materials, either liquid or solid,
`
`including water, acids, or alkalis. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`51. The form factor of batteries may be varied depending on the application
`
`for which it will be used. For example, the basic configuration of cathode, anode,
`
`and electrolyte can be placed into a rectangular housing, cylindrical housing, or
`
`button/coin housing. Id. at 252-256, 400. Within each respective housing, the
`
`arrangement of electrode and electrolyte layers can also vary.
`
`52.
`
`In button cell batteries, more specifically, which generally have a
`
`height-to-diameter ratio around 1 or less, the electrode layers can be simply stacked
`
`on top of one another, with a porous separator interposed between them and an
`
`electrolyte either impregnated into the separator and electrodes if the electrodes are
`
`porous, or impregnated into the separator and in contact with the electrodes if they
`
`are non-porous. See Ex. 1007 (Ryou) at [0009]. This separator must be electrically
`
`insulating to prevent a short circuit from occurring between the electrode layers.
`
`One such cell is reproduced below, showing a negative electrode 12 stacked atop a
`
`positive electrode 14, with an insulating separator 16 between them and an
`
`electrolyte 18 surrounding them.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007 (Ryou) at FIG. 1.
`
`53. Another configuration that can be included within button cells are spiral
`
`wound electrode assemblies. Commonly called a “jelly roll” configuration, these
`
`spiral assemblies allow for significantly greater surface area of electrode layers,
`
`resulting in high output rates than in the alternatively stacked arrays. Ex. 1009
`
`(Linden) at 91.
`
`54.
`
`In either arrangement, the cell housing generally also acts as the
`
`terminal, with the positive electrode attached in some way to the positive battery
`
`terminal, and the negative electrode is attached to the negative terminal. For
`
`example, in the button cell reproduced below, a lower conductive can 30 is attached
`
`to the cathode 24, forming a positive battery terminal, and the anode 22, contacts the
`
`conductive lid 24 to form the negative battery terminal. Ex. 1019 (Tuttle) at 1:20-
`
`24.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1019 (Tuttle) at FIG. 2.
`
`A.
`Spiral Wound Electrode Assemblies
`55. Generally, “spiral wound” electrode assemblies are created by
`
`preparing the electrode layers (comprising an anode and a cathode material) “as thin
`
`strips and then rolled, with a separator in between.” Ex. 1009 (Linden) at 91. Such
`
`an assembly can be created by: winding the stacked layers around a central winding
`
`column, which is then removed or winding the layers around a central column, that
`
`is not removed.
`
`56. Once wound, the assembly can be secured from unwinding in several
`
`different ways. For example, the layers can be loosely stacked on top of each other,
`
`wound into a spiral shape, and then secured with an outer piece of adhesive or
`
`adhesive backed tape, which holds the outermost layer in place and provides a radial
`
`pressure to the other layers, preventing the entire assembly from unravelling. This
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`JLab/Cambridge, Exh. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`outer adhesive can be in the form of a single piece that covers only a portion of the
`
`outer surface of the assembly (for example, a small strip of tape attached to a portion
`
`of the outer layer) or it could be a ring which encompasses the entire outer surface
`
`and puts pressure on the entire assembly.
`
`57. One well known method of assembling a spiral wound electrode
`
`assembly involves adhering or laminating the layers before being wound, which
`
`ensures that the final assembly does not unravel. This can take the form of an
`
`adhesive material that is provided between the layers of the assembly and using a
`
`lamination process.
`
`58. Lamination can occur by a number of known methods. For example,
`
`the prepared electrode and separator layers, can be stacked atop one another, with
`
`the separator interposed between the electrode layers, as the electrode layers cannot
`
`be in direct contact with one another for the battery to function. Once assembled,
`
`the layered stack can be heated and pressed in order to achieve lamination between
`
`the layers. See, e.g., Ex. 1017 (Schmutz) at 4:28-34 (“Preshaped or sized assemblies
`
`may be simply pressed for a short while between metal plates weighted at about 3 x
`
`104 to 5 x 104 Pa in an oven at a temperature of 120o to 160o C”). Once this laminated
`
`stack is assembled, it can be wound, typically aro