`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`___________________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2021-00471
`Patent 10, 259,021
`___________________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`II. BACKGROUND. ................................................................................................ 3
`
`A. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘021 PATENT. ....................................................................... 3
`
`B. PROSECUTION HISTORY ..................................................................................... 5
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ........................................................................ 5
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 6
`
`V. THE ALLEGED GUNDLACH-LEE COMBINATION. ................................... 6
`
`A. OVERVIEW OF GUNDLACH ................................................................................. 6
`
`B. OVERVIEW OF LEE ............................................................................................. 8
`
`C. APPLE’S REASONS FOR COMBINING GUNDLACH AND LEE ARE, TO A POSITA,
`
`UNFOUNDED AND UNPERSUASIVE, AND HEAVILY OUTWEIGHED BY THE
`
`INEFFICIENCIES OF SUCH A SYSTEM. ......................................................................... 9
`
`D. A POSITA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO REPLACE GUNDLACH’S
`
`EFFICIENT CONDUCTIVE CHARGING WITH FAR LESS EFFICIENT INDUCTIVE CHARGING.
`
`ANY ALLEGED BENEFITS FROM WIRELESS CHARGING WOULD HAVE BEEN GREATLY
`
`OUTWEIGHED BY THE INEFFICIENCIES AND ADDITIONAL COST, SIZE AND WEIGHT.
`
`FURTHER A POSITA WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN LESS MOTIVATED TO USE LEE’S EVEN
`
`MORE INEFFICIENT DUAL PURPOSE TRANSDUCER COIL DESIGN. ..............................20
`
`E. A POSITA WOULD NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD LEE’S CHARGING PAD TO BE
`
`APPLICABLE TO ITS DUAL PURPOSE WIRELESS CHARGING SOLUTION. .....................35
`
`

`

`F. A POSITA WOULD NOT BE MOTIVATED TO MAKE THE PROPOSED GUNDLACH-
`
`LEE COMBINATION BECAUSE IT WOULD DRAIN THE CLAMSHELL CASE BATTERY,
`
`RESULTING IN A HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE CHARGING SYSTEM....................................36
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS .................................. 39
`
`A. GROUND 1A— CLAIMS 1, 4-7, 10, 14-16 AND 19 ARE NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW
`
`OF GUNDLACH AND LEE. ........................................................................................41
`
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................41
`
`2. Claim 4 ........................................................................................................53
`
`3. Claim 5 ........................................................................................................53
`
`4. Claim 6 ........................................................................................................55
`
`5. Claim 7 ........................................................................................................56
`
`6. Claim 10 ......................................................................................................57
`
`7. Claim 14 ......................................................................................................58
`
`8. Claim 15 ......................................................................................................58
`
`9. Claim 16 ......................................................................................................59
`
`10. Claim 19 ...................................................................................................59
`
`B. GROUND 1B—GUNDLACH, LEE, AND NISHIKAWA DO NOT RENDER CLAIMS 4
`
`AND 4 OBVIOUS. .....................................................................................................60
`
`1. Overview of Nishikawa ................................................................................60
`
`2. Analysis of Claims 4 and 14 ........................................................................60
`
`

`

`2. Claim 14 ......................................................................................................61
`
`C. GROUND 1C: CLAIM 10 IS NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF GUNDLACH, LEE, AND
`
`ROSENER ................................................................................................................61
`
`1. Overview of Rosener ...................................................................................61
`
`2. Analysis of Claim 10....................................................................................62
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 74
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................43
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
` ...............................................................................................................................43
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................43
`Hartness Int’l. Inc. v. Simplimatic Engineering Co., 819 F.2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
` ...............................................................................................................................43
`In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ..........................................................43
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................43
`In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ...................................................................43
`In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011 (CCPA 1967) ............................................................42
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
` ...............................................................................................................................42
`KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................ 42, 43
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) .......................................................42
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ...............................................................................................43
`
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 2022
`
`Declaration of Hamid Toliyat, PhD
`
`Exhibit 2023
`
`CV of Hamid Toliyat, PhD
`
`Exhibit 2024
`
`YouTube video of Powermat bearing a date of
`
`December
`
`28,
`
`2020
`
`and
`
`accessible
`
`at
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SyU_eKd3pE.
`
`Exhibit 2025
`
` YouTube video of Powermat bearing a date of
`
`November
`
`29,
`
`2010
`
`and
`
`accessible
`
`at
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLOYN6SgbFQ.
`
`Exhibit 2026
`
` YouTube video of Palm Touchstone bearing a date of
`
`July
`
`11,
`
`2011
`
`and
`
`accessible
`
`at
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCyyJTszxH8.
`
`Exhibit 2027
`
`Wireless Power Consortium site on the Wayback
`
`Machine
`
`at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20110715210021/http://
`
`www.wirelesspowerconsortium.com/technology/cou
`
`pling-factor.html
`
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Li and Mi, WPT for EV Applications, IEEE Journal
`
`of Emerging and Selected Topics
`
`in Power
`
`Electronics, Vol. 3, No. 1.
`
`

`

`Exhibit 2029
`
`Wireless Power Consortium site on the Wayback
`
`Machine
`
`at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20110729035955/http://
`
`www.wirelesspowerconsortium.com/member-list.
`
`Exhibit 2030
`
`Wireless Power Consortium site on the Wayback
`
`Machine
`
`at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20110821093859/http://
`
`www.wirelesspowerconsortium.com/about/our-
`
`vision.html
`
`Exhibit 2031
`
`Wireless Power Consortium site on the Wayback
`
`Machine
`
`at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20110822142011/http://
`
`www.wirelesspowerconsortium.com/technology/tota
`
`l-energy-consumption.html
`
`Exhibit 2032
`
`An introduction to the Wireless Power Consortium
`
`standard and TI’s compliant solutions” from the 1Q
`
`2011 Texas Instruments Analog Applications Journal
`
`Exhibit 2033
`
`H. Shen, J. Lee and T. Chang, "Study of contactless
`
`inductive charging platform with core array structure
`
`for portable products," 2011 International Conference
`
`

`

`on Consumer Electronics, Communications and
`
`Networks, 2011
`
`2034
`
`Measuring Wireless Charging Efficiency In the Real
`
`World”
`
`from
`
`https://www.wirelesspowerconsortium.com/data/dow
`
`nloadables/1/4/8/1/measuring-wireless-charging-
`
`efficiency-in-the-real-world-wpc-michigan-sept-
`
`2015.pdf
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`Petitioner Apple challenges the patentability of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, 14-17
`
`and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,259,021 (the “‘021 patent”). Underlying each of the
`
`proposed grounds is the allegation that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) would have combined the teachings of Gundlach and Lee and that
`
`independent claim 1 would be obvious in view of such a combination. Because a
`
`POSITA would not make such a combination and, further, because any such
`
`combination would not teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1, the Petition
`
`fails.
`
`Contrary to the arguments in the Petition, a POSITA would not have
`
`recognized Lee’s inductive charging, especially the “dual” coil inductive charging
`
`in Lee’s Fig. 12 that Apple relies upon, as a suitable alternative to Gundlach’s
`
`conductive charging. Rather, the POSITA would have appreciated Gundlach’s
`
`disclosures of conductive charging as being more than adequate. Additionally, a
`
`POSITA would have considered any alleged benefits from Lee’s inductive charging,
`
`especially the “dual” coil inductive charging in Lee’s Fig. 12 that Apple relies
`
`upon, to be heavily outweighed by other factors. In 2011, such inductive charging
`
`would have extracted heavy and prohibitive penalties in terms of efficiency, cost,
`
`complexity, and size. Nor would any enhanced reliabilities motivate the POSITA to
`
`adopt Lee’s inductive charging in a system as described by Gundlach.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Apple’s proposed combination of Gundlach with Lee turns Gundlach’s simple
`
`charging solution from a straightforward DC-to-DC charging system to a DC-to-
`
`AC-to-DC charging system due to Lee’s need for a time varying (AC) current for
`
`inductive coils. The need for the AC current also demands the use of rectifiers and
`
`other circuit elements, all of which contribute to the inefficiency of the design by
`
`becoming sources of power loss due to heat. All this in an attempt by Apple to
`
`replace the simple conductive contacts (e.g., contacts 326) that Gundlach has already
`
`provided. Contrary to Apple’s protestations concerning “reliability,” Gundlach
`
`already addressed such concerns by instructing that the power adapter can be formed
`
`“in a manner that may reduce the stress on the electrical connection between the
`
`adapter and wireless device. For example, the adapter may be formed so as to slide
`
`or latch...” Ex. 1005, [0066]. Since the existing Gundlach conductive charging
`
`solution was both adequate and reliable, a POSITA would have found no reason to
`
`replace it, especially with Lee’s significantly less efficient induction charging
`
`system, and more especially with the highly inefficient )(if it would work at all)
`
`“dual” coil inductive charging in Lee’s Fig. 12 that Apple relies upon, that would
`
`either require increased battery sizes for the headset or clamshell, or both (due to
`
`power lost in the form of heat), or, if not, would substantially increase the time to
`
`charge the headset battery.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Further, adopting Lee’s wireless charging, especially Lee’s Fig. 12 “dual”
`
`purpose coil wireless charging arrangement, would not promote or be consistent with
`
`Gundlach’s goal of providing a compact form factor. The proposed Gundlach-Lee
`
`combination relies on an embodiment of Lee that would necessitate additional
`
`components and circuitry, and a larger clamshell case battery, all with associated
`
`bulk, and which introduce unneeded complexities due to demands of transmitter-
`
`receiver coil alignment and proximities for inductive charging. Nor would Lee’s
`
`wireless charging solution especially Lee’s Fig. 12 “dual” purpose coil wireless
`
`charging solution, offer any advantages of interoperability.
`
`Not only would the POSITA not make the Gundlach-Lee combination
`
`proposed in the Petition, that combination does not even meet the requirements of
`
`the claims, as demonstrated below. Further, as demonstrated below, Apple’s
`
`arguments for unpatentability of the dependent claims likewise lack merit.
`
` II. BACKGROUND.
`
`A. Overview of the ‘021 Patent.
`
`The ‘021 Patent discloses switching devices have functions such as activating,
`
`deactivating and hibernating electronic devices such as cell phones, smartphones,
`
`tablet computers and laptop computers. See e.g., Ex. 1001 at 18:5-9.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Aspects of disclosed embodiments of the invention further comprise a
`
`switching device that activates or deactivates an electronic device by employing a
`
`magnet. Id., 4:8-16.
`
`Aspects of disclosed embodiments of the invention further comprise a case of
`
`the switching device functioning to protect an electronic device's primary case. See,
`
`e.g., Id., 2:47-48; and FIG. 5A, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The prosecution history for the ‘021 patent is at Ex. 1002. Apple does not
`
`appear to contend that anything relevant to claim construction or patentability in this
`
`proceeding occurred during prosecution of the ‘021 patent. Gwee is not presently
`
`relying upon anything from prosecution of the ‘021 patent, besides the mutually
`
`assumed August 5, 2011 priority date (see Ex. 2021, 17), for purposes of this
`
`Response.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ‘021 patent (a
`
`“POSITA”) would have had either a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer science, or mechanical engineering with some level of post-baccalaureate
`
`electronic device or system design experience, or an equivalent level of experience
`
`and training through other means. Ex. 2022, 31. Superior education might be able
`
`to compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa. Ex. 2022, 32.
`
`Use of the phrase “at least” in Apple’s definition of a POSITA, Pet., 6, leaves
`
`the actual educational and other experience of a POSITA in doubt because it
`
`encompasses someone of greater education, training, and skill than a POSITA and
`
`could even include an expert in the field. Ex. 2022, 30.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Gwee has assigned the claim terms their plain and ordinary meanings as a
`
`POSITA would have understood them in the context of the ‘021 patent, unless
`
`otherwise noted herein.
`
`V. THE ALLEGED GUNDLACH-LEE COMBINATION.
`
`A. Overview of Gundlach
`
`Gundlach relates to a device that when in a first configuration, such as when
`
`expanded, becomes a wireless mono or stereo headset and when in a second
`
`configuration, such as when collapsed, stores and charges in a host device such as a
`
`laptop computer or cell phone. Ex. 1005, [0002].
`
`Gundlach observes that most portable and handheld computers have expansion
`
`slots built-in such as the ExpressCard or PC Card slots. Ex. 1005, [0006]. Many such
`
`slots have power that can be used to charge battery operated devices as well as high
`
`speed communications buses. Ex. 1005, [0006].
`
`When collapsed, Gundlach’s earpiece may be situated in a plane with the
`
`housing of the headset creating a product thickness of, e.g., about 5 mm or less. Ex.
`
`1005, [0056]. The relatively thin shape allows the headset to be stored and charged
`
`in a portable cradle, or it may be charged with a mini USB charger. Ex. 1005, [0056],
`
`[0066]. The portable cradle may be a holder, clip, case or card that fits inside a
`
`standard expansion slot. Ex. 1005, [0056], [0057].
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Gundlach’s wireless headset may be stored and charged in a cradle that may
`
`have attributes, such as a form factor or configuration that may allow the cradle to be
`
`inserted into a slot in a host device. Ex. 1005, [0070]. Or, the wireless headset itself
`
`may take on a form factor of a slot in a host device. Ex. 1005, [0070].
`
`As illustrated in Fig. 18, wireless device 1800 may be provided in a clamshell
`
`case 1860, Ex. 1005, [0080], as follows:
`
`
`
`Apple states that Gundlach teaches a “relatively thin shape” that may allow
`
`the headset to be stored and charged in a holder, clip, case or card. Pet., 7; Ex. 1003,
`
`26; Ex. 1005, [0055-0056]). Gwee concurs. Ex. 2022, 79.
`
`Apple notes Gundlach’s “compact design.” Pet. 8; Ex. 1003, 26; Ex. 1005,
`
`[0055-0056]. Gwee concurs. Ex. 2022, 80.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`B. Overview of Lee
`
`Apple relies upon the method/apparatus depicted in Lee’s FIG. 12, which
`
`depicts a method/apparatus for wirelessly charging the battery in wireless
`
`headphone/headset apparatus 460:
`
`
`
`In this embodiment, energy is transferred to the wireless headphone/headset
`
`apparatus 460 via inductive coupling 461 to energy collection element 465. Ex.
`
`1006, 4:53-55. Energy collection element 465 has a “dual role and is also used as
`
`the transducer coil of a headphone/headset/audio speaker.” Ex. 1006, 4:55-57.
`
`Per Lee, the switch 470 can sense when the headphone/headset apparatus 460
`
`is near the power adapter, so that it automatically closes to the charge position when
`
`near the power adapter and automatically opens to the non-charge position when
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`away from the power adapter. Ex. 1005, 5:12-34. Alternatively, power adapter 201
`
`can be operative to wirelessly communicate with headphone/headset apparatus
`
`460… [to] …wirelessly
`
`transmit
`
`the switch control signal 471
`
`to
`
`the
`
`headphone/headset apparatus 460 to cause the switch 470 to close when the
`
`headphone/headset apparatus 460 is near the adapter.” Ex. 1006, 5:34-40.
`
`C. Apple’s reasons for combining Gundlach and Lee are, to a
`
`POSITA, unfounded and unpersuasive, and heavily outweighed by
`
`the inefficiencies of such a system.
`
`Apple asserts that a “POSITA considering Gundlach, and noting its limited
`
`disclosure on charging, would have seen a need for elaboration and description of
`
`design options.” Pet, 12. To the contrary, Gundlach provides ample disclosure
`
`concerning its conductive charging via contacts 326 and micro-USB connections.
`
`Besides, conductive charging of a consumer device such as a headset would be a
`
`relatively simple and straightforward process for a POSITA. Ex. 1022, 88.
`
`Apple’s assertion that a search for “design options” for supplemental
`
`disclosure on Gundlach’s conductive charging would have led to Lee’s inductive
`
`charging solutions is also wrong. Ex. 1022, 88-89. As explained herein, inductive
`
`charging is significantly more complicated than conductive charging and involves
`
`significantly more electrical and mechanical design considerations. Ex. 1022, 90.
`
`Due to the inefficiencies and design considerations of Apple’s suggested inductive
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`charging system, as explained in more detail below, a POSITA would not agree that
`
`“[t]hese modifications would have been well within a POSITA’s skill.” Pet, 13. See
`
`Ex. 2022, 90.
`
`Apple’s first basis for an alleged motivation to pursue the Gundlach-Lee
`
`combination is that a “POSITA would have recognized inductive charging as a
`
`suitable alternative to conductive charging that was known to produce similar
`
`results.” Pet. 14. To the contrary, and as explained further below, a POSITA in the
`
`relevant 2011 timeframe (1) would not have seen inefficient inductive charging,
`
`including in particular the inductive charging from Lee’s transducer coil advocated
`
`by Apple, as an industry-recognized alternative to efficient conductive charging for
`
`low power portable devices being charged from a device with compact form factor
`
`and small battery; and (2) would not seek inductive charging, including in particular
`
`the inductive charging from Lee’s transducer coil, as producing substantially similar
`
`results as conductive in the context of low-power portable devices. Ex. 2022, 92.
`
`Apple asserts that, “[b]y the Critical Date in 2011, inductive chargers for smart
`
`phones and media players were already established as commercial products,” and in
`
`support cites the Powermat and the Palm Touchstone charger. See Ex, 1003, 40.
`
`However, a POSITA would appreciate that Powermat and the Palm Touchstone
`
`charger in 2001 were not for portable charging (as Gundlach’s clamshell case was
`
`designed to provide). Ex. 2022, 93. To the contrary, the Powermat was a conduit
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`for power
`
`from
`
`a wall
`
`socket or USB
`
`connection. See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SyU_eKd3pE:
`
`and
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit 2024. See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLOYN6SgbFQ:
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`eae
`
`
`
`a3
`
`Pe
`
`' [so]
`
`Daten
`ST eek aed
`
`1 GP oisuime
`
`=> SHARE
`
`and
`
`From
`
`
`
`Hubbell NEMA 14:50Outlet DIY:
`
`
`
`rging System
`
`a) 1
`
`GP OISLIKE 4 SHARE 4 SAVE
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Ex. 2022, 93; Exhibit 2025.
`
`A POSITA would also understand that the Palm Touchstone charger was a
`
`corded solution that was a conduit for power supplied from wall outlet or USB port
`
`of a larger device, i.e., a laptop or desktop computer. Ex. 2022, 94. See e, g.,
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCyyJTszxH8:
`
`Ex. 2026.
`
`A POSITA would understand that the Powermat and Palm Touchstone had
`
`essentially limitless power sources for their inductive charging, as opposed to
`
`Apple’s proposed Gundlach-Lee combination. Ex. 2022, 95.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Consumer products such as earphones would be considered low power
`
`devices. Ex. 2022, 96. A POSITA would not have been aware of any portable,
`
`especially hand-held, low power consumer electronic products that inductively
`
`charged directly from a portable battery powered device to portable battery powered
`
`device in 2011. Ex. 2022, 96. The power loss and charging inefficiencies and serious
`
`design challenges are the most likely explanation for the lack of such products. Ex.
`
`2022, 96.
`
`Apple’s asserts that conductors would add bulk and unreliability. Ex. 1003,
`
`31 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:62-2:2). This is patently false and contradicts the teachings of
`
`Gundlach itself. Gundlach’s headsets are preferably “24 mmx 60 mm x 5 mm when
`
`folded for storage purposes.” Ex. 1005, [0057] Ex. 2022, 97. A POSITA would
`
`appreciate that an electrical contact for charging a low power device such as a
`
`Gundlach headset is typically only a couple of millimeters. Ex. 2022, 97. The 24
`
`mmx 60 mm surface area of Gundlach’s headsets has ample space for charging
`
`contacts. Ex. 2022, 97. Case in point: Gundlach Fig. 3b, contacts 326. Further, a
`
`POSITA would appreciate that electrical contacts are highly reliable. Ex. 2022, 98.
`
`All systems that Dr. Toliyat, a noted expert in the field of inductive charging,
`
`has ever encountered that charge an earpiece from a portable, battery powered case
`
`have used electrical, i.e., conductive, contacts for the connection from the case to the
`
`earpiece. Ex. 2022, 96, 99, 134. If corrosion of such electrical contacts was actually
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`an issue, and/or if it was not heavily outweighed by the wireless charging efficiency
`
`issues noted herein, one would expect there would be such products as advocated by
`
`Apple on the market. Ex. 2022, 99.
`
`Lee’s suggestion of a risk of failure from fatigue and corrosion is a minimal
`
`design consideration. Ex. 2022, 100. Further, if a POSITA was actually concerned
`
`with potential corrosion from a hostile environment, the POSITA could use common
`
`and highly conductive metals which resist corrosion. Ex. 2022, 100. Thus, the
`
`suggestion of Apple of the most “compelling advantage of inductive charging” being
`
`“reliability,” see Ex. 1003, 42, is a fiction because conductive contacts would have
`
`more than ample reliability for Gundlach’s applications, especially the encased Fig.
`
`18 application. Ex. 2022, 100.
`
`Apple asserts that a “POSITA would have appreciated that Lee’s inductive
`
`charging solution was consistent with Gundlach’s … compact form factor.” Pet, 15.
`
`However, a POSITA would understand that conductive charging, as specifically
`
`taught by Gundlach, was consistent with Gundlach’s this already. Ex. 2022, 103.
`
`Indeed, simple charging contacts of the kind described by Gundlach occupy far less
`
`space that the necessary coils and other circuitry needed by Lee’s inductive charging
`
`solution. Ex. 2022, 104. Further, as explained in more detail below, a POSITA
`
`would understand that a Gundlach-Lee charging system proposed by Apple would
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`be highly inefficient and would require a larger battery for the clamshell, which
`
`would add significant size and weight. Ex. 2022, 104.
`
`Apple misses the point of Gundlach’s compact form factor. Ex. 2022, 105.
`
`Gundlach requires a compact form factor because it wants to charge and provide
`
`data to the headset from a slot in a PC or phone. Ex. 2022, 105; Ex. 1005, [005],
`
`[006], [0055], [0057], [0070]; Ex. 2022, 106-109. APOSITA would have
`
`understood that the clamshell case of Fig. 18 relied upon by Apple is stated by
`
`Gundlach as being capable of insertion into a laptop or phone slot or capable of
`
`receiving USB connectors for “power or data.” Ex. 1005, [0057], [0080]; Ex. 2022,
`
`110. A POSITA would understand that Apple’s argument for replacing Gundlach’s
`
`conductive charging with inductive charging violates the primary benefit and
`
`principle of Gundlach’s design. Ex. 2022, 109. Further, a POSITA would not be
`
`motivated to add inductive charging to the already present conductive charging
`
`capability of Gundlach’s headsets. Ex. 2022, 109. This would add unnecessary
`
`weight, cost and size from using significantly larger batteries, in addition to a
`
`POSITA’s appreciation, discussed below, that inductive charging is less efficient,
`
`and thus slower, than conductive charging. Ex. 2022, 109.
`
`Apple’s
`
`expert Dr. Cooperstock
`
`argues
`
`that without wireless
`
`“interoperability,” a user would be unable to recharge in a situation of a misplaced
`
`case. Ex. 1003, 45. A POSITA would not see this as a need or a benefit. First, the
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`headset its own mini-USB connection. Second, in 2011, as today, there are many
`
`more options for charging a device from an expansion slot or mini USB than there
`
`are wireless charging options. Ex. 2022, 111. A POSITA would further appreciate
`
`that the Lee embodiment comprising a dual role speaker transducer coil would
`
`require a specifically designed inductive charging device for coil alignment. Ex.
`
`2022, 111. Thus, replacing Gundlach’s conductive charging with Lee’s inductive
`
`charging, especially the dual-use transducer coil charging advocated by Apple,
`
`would reduce charging. Ex. 2022, 112, 113.
`
`Apple suggests an undesirability of micro or mini-USB connections for
`
`Gundlach earpieces because they “may increase the size of the design.” Ex. 1003,
`
`45. A POSITA would not agree with this suggestion, especially since Gundlach
`
`itself dispels such a notion. Ex. 2022, 114. Rather, a POSITA would appreciate that
`
`the stated size of Gundlach’s earpieces leaves ample room for micro and mini- USB
`
`connections, as illustrated by Gundlach’s Figures. Ex. 2022, 114. Also as noted
`
`above, a POSITA would understand that the asserted Gundlach-Lee combination
`
`would require a larger and heavier form factor due to the additional circuitry and
`
`larger clamshell battery required to accommodate or power losses. Ex. 2022, 114.
`
`Apple’s asserts that “Lee’s approach for implementing inductive charging
`
`with a single dual-purpose charging/audio coil would enable the wireless headset to
`
`be recharged using various types of inductive chargers (e.g., a charging pad).” Ex.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`1003, 45. A POSITA would not agree with this statement. because there would need
`
`to be precise alignment of charging and receiving coils (see charging pad illustration
`
`below). Ex. 2022, 115.
`
`Apple’s asserts that, “Lee’s figures illustrate this benefit by depicting the same
`
`set of earbuds being charged by multiple different types of chargers.” Ex. 1003, 45.
`
`However, Lee makes no statement that its depicted chargers, e.g., those in Lee Figs.
`
`16-24, are for its embodiment that uses the transducer coil for the wireless power
`
`receiving coil. Ex. 2022, 116. As addressed in more detail below, a POSITA would
`
`not understand the depicted chargers to be for Lee’s Fig. 12 dual use embodiment
`
`because the charge pad would be out of alignment and oriented perpendicular to the
`
`earpiece transducer coil with an air gap that would be exceedingly large, which
`
`would not allow the earpiece to charge. Ex. 2022, 116.
`
`Here and elsewhere, it should be noted that if Lee’s Fig. 12 speaker transducer
`
`coil was not used as the inductive coil, then there would be no need for switch 470
`
`(which Apple relies upon for the “switching device” limitation in claim 1), as
`
`evidenced by Lee’s other embodiments depicted in its Figures as not needing or
`
`having switch 470 due to their lack of dual use coil. Ex. 2022, 117.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`D. A POSITA would not have been motivated to replace Gundlach’s
`
`efficient conductive charging with far less efficient inductive
`
`charging. Any alleged benefits from wireless charging would have
`
`been greatly outweighed by the inefficiencies and additional cost,
`
`size and weight. Further a POSITA would have been even less
`
`motivated to use Lee’s even more inefficient dual purpose
`
`transducer coil design.
`
`118. A POSITA in 2011 would have also been aware that coupling factor k is an
`
`important consideration for wireless power transfer (“WPT”) systems. Ex. 2022,
`
`118. In 2011 the Wireless Power Consortium (“WPC”) published a standard
`
`definition of this k factor, as follows:
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Ex.
`
`
`
`2027
`
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20110715210021/http://www.wirelesspowerconsortiu
`
`m.com/technology/coupling-factor.html). See Ex. 2022, 118; Ex. 2028. A POSITA
`
`would have been familiar with this coupling factor k in and before 2011.
`
`The distance between a transmitter coil and receiver coil is commonly referred
`
`to as an “air gap.” Ex. 2022, 119. The k factor tends to decrease substantially as the
`
`air gap increases from its desired minimum. Id. Any good WPT design minimizes
`
`the air gap. Id. A POSITA would also be highly motivated to have coils in alignment
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`oriented “planar” to each other, as indicated by the WPC standard above, to achieve
`
`an acceptable k value. Ex. 2022, 119.
`
`Further, a POSITA would understand that, with other things being equal,
`
`larger size coils result in a higher k value compared to smaller size coils. Ex. 2022,
`
`120. A POSITA attempting to implement Lee’s dual purpose coil in a Gundlach
`
`headset would be seriously constrained by the 5 mm height of the headsets noted
`
`above. Ex. 2022, 120. This would limit the size of the receiving coil to about 3-4
`
`mm. Ex. 2022, 120.
`
`A POSITA considering inductive charging for a low power, portable device
`
`in 2011 would have been aware of the Wireless Power Consortium. Ex. 2022, 121.
`
`In mid-2011 the Wireless Power Consortium had well known and experienced
`
`industry
`
`members.
`
`Ex.
`
`2029
`
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20110729035955/http://www.wirelesspowerconsortiu
`
`m.com/member-list). See Ex. 2022, 121. This consortium of well-known
`
`companies, including leaders in wireless charging for consumer electronics, was
`
`working on a standard to make wireless charging stations compatible. Ex. 2030
`
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20110821093859/http://www.wirelesspowerconsortiu
`
`m.com/about/our-vision.html). See Ex. 2022, 121.
`
`The WPC was aware in mid-2011, and a POSITA would have been aware in
`
`mid-2011, that wireless charging was substantially less efficient than conductive
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`charging. The WPC published that “careful design made it possible to achieve at
`
`least 70% transfer efficiency,” and that percentage can go up “a bit” if a
`
`manufacturer is willing to spend more on high quality components:
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`
`
`2031
`
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20110822142011/http://www.wirelesspowerconsortiu
`
`m.com/technology/total-energy-consumption.htm). See Ex. 2022, 122. In other
`
`words, a POSITA would understand that well designed WPT systems from WPC-
`
`compliant devices using optimized compon