`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2021-00472
`
`Patent 10,562,077
`
`___________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S ORAL HEARING DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________________________________________
`
`IPR2021-00471, -00472, -00473
`
`Demonstratives of Patent Owner GUI Global Products, Ltd.
`
`Hearing Date: May 19, 2022
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`1
`
`

`

`Lee’s inductive charging, especially the “dual” coil inductive charging of Lee’s Fig. 12, is
`not a suitable alternative to Gundlach’s conductive charging
`
`Petitioner uses hindsight to combine Lee’s Fig. 12 dual purpose transducer coil embodiment with Gundlach’s clamshell case
`embodiment to create a reason for Gundlach’s clamshell case (which protects Gundlach’s headset) to have switch 470. The
`result is a combination that is highly undesirable and violates Gundlach’s design goals with its serious charging inefficiency
`requiring larger size and weight, and with its increased cost and complexity.
`
`The testimony of Gwee’s expert, Dr. Toliyat, whose vast expertise in the area of wireless charging is not denied, amply
`contravenes, debunks and outweighs any alleged motions to combine proffered by Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner’s new theories, each made for the first time in its Reply, as well as new Exhibits 1069-1089 submitted with the
`Reply, in an effort to rebut Dr. Toliyat’s reasoned analysis. These new theories and exhibits are untimely, improper and unfairly
`prejudicial in a Reply, and they should be disregarded.
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`2
`
`

`

`Gundlach requires a highly compact form factor
`for storing and charging the headset and case/cradle using a laptop or cell phone
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1005
`3
`
`

`

`The Petition advanced a specific configuration for an alleged Gundlach-Lee combination utilizing
`the geometry of the devices depicted in the asserted “system” in Gundlach Fig. 18.
`
`For example, the Petition states and depicts the following:
`
`Pet., 7.
`
`The wireless headset depicted, described and relied upon in the Petition is the one consistently
`depicted in Gundlach. E.g., Ex. 1005, Figs. 1, 2a-f, 3a-b, 4a-b, 5a-b, 6a-d, 8, 9a-b, 10a-c, 11a-b, 13a-b,
`14a-b, 17b-c, and 18a-b; Pet., passim.
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`4
`
`

`

`The Petition advanced a specific configuration for an alleged Gundlach-Lee combination utilizing
`the geometry of the devices depicted in the asserted “system” in Gundlach Fig. 18.
`
`The Petition advanced a specific configuration for an alleged Gundlach-Lee combination utilizing the geometry of the
`devices depicted in the asserted “system” in Gundlach Fig. 18.
`
`E.g., Pet., 17 (“embodiment of Figures 18a-18b…is consistent with a POSITA’s understanding of a system”); Pet., 24-
`25 (“Figure 18 clamshell case”); Pet. 29, 32 (“clamshell case embodiment (Figures 18a-18b)”); Pet., 28, 31-33-34, 36,
`39, 41-42, 49, 63 (referring to Gundlach “clamshell case” as the “switching device”); Pet. 28, 33 (“Gundlach and Lee
`yield a clamshell case”); Pet., 47 (“clamshell case embodiment of Figures 18a-18b is sufficient to demonstrate
`obviousness”). The theories in the Petition were based upon the starting point of the Gundlach headset, e.g., headset
`100 in the Petition’s Fig. 1, which has the same geometry as headset 1800 in Fig. 18, which has a speaker, and thus a
`speaker transducer coil, in the earpiece of the wireless headset. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, [0058], [0060].
`
`The footnoted statement about “bodily incorporation,” (Pet., 14, n.2), misses the point that the
`Petition unambiguously relied upon Gundlach Fig. 18 clamshell case and its corresponding
`headset as the starting point and basis for a system modified by Lee. It also misses the point
`that the speaker being modified by Lee’s dual-use coil is depicted in the Petition in the earpiece:
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`5
`
`

`

`Lee’s inductive charging, especially the “dual” coil inductive charging of Lee’s Fig. 12, is
`not a suitable alternative to Gundlach’s conductive charging
`
`Gundlach’s inductive charging is highly efficient and reliability is not a legitimate
`concern. (Ex. 2022, 98, 100).
`
`Alignment of charging contacts and exposure to elements are not issues with
`Gundlach’s earpiece charging inside its clamshell case. (Ex. 2022, 98, 100).
`
`Gundlach appreciates 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.” (Ex. 1005, [0066]).
`
`Drs. Cooperstock agrees with Dr. Toliyat (Ex. 2022, 100) that a POSITA would
`design Gundlach’s charging contacts to avoid reliability issues. Ex. 2022, ¶100;
`Ex. 2036; 37:15-22.
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`6
`
`

`

`Lee’s inductive charging, especially the “dual” coil inductive charging of Lee’s Fig. 12, is
`not a suitable alternative to Gundlach’s conductive charging
`
`Due to the size and geometry constraints of Gundlach’s clamshell case, Lee’s dual purpose transducer coil inductive charging would be highly inefficient.
`(Ex. 1022, 127-128).
`
`Drs. Toliyat and Cooperstock concur that coil alignment and minimal air gap are needed for wireless charging (Ex. 2022, 118-119; Ex. 2027; Ex. 2028).
`
`Dr. Cooperstock untimely new opinions, if not disregarded (which they should be) acknowledge that to achieve usable coil size, alignment and air gap
`requirements, a Gundlach-Lee dual purpose transducer coil would not be located in the earpiece as was advanced by Apple’s Petition. E.g., Ex. 1089, ¶28.
`
`Larger coils (i.e., good flux path height), minimal air gap and good coil alignment result in a higher k value to achieve the industry goal of 70% efficiency.
`Ex. 2022, 120-127, 242-243. This would be aspirational at best for the proposed Gundlach-Lee combination. Ex. 2022, 128. Aside from the size and
`geometry limitations, the speaker magnet and diaphragm would cause even more power loss in the form of undesirable heat. (Ex. 2022, 128-131, 135-137).
`
`Lost heat inside of an enclosed clamshell, especially one inside a purse or pocket, would be problematic and undesirable. (Ex. 2022, 127, 135, 146).
`
`The serious size and geometry constraints of the Petition’s Gundlach-Lee combination include a tiny, i.e., 3-4MM coil with a large air gap cased by the
`intervening speaker diaphragm. (Ex. 1022, 120, 133, 139-140).
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`7
`
`

`

`Lee’s inductive charging, especially the “dual” coil inductive charging of Lee’s Fig. 12, is
`not a suitable alternative to Gundlach’s conductive charging
`
`A POSITA in 2011 would understand the need for large, parallel coils and minimized air gaps just to achieve approximate
`30% inefficiency. (Ex. 2022, 122; Ex. 2031):
`
`Gundlach’s disclosed conductively charged devices would have near 95% or higher charging efficiency. (Ex. 2022, 125).
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`8
`
`

`

`Lee’s inductive charging, especially the “dual” coil inductive charging of Lee’s Fig. 12, is
`not a suitable alternative to Gundlach’s conductive charging
`
`Lee’s dual purpose transducer coil inductive charging would violate Gundlach’s design goals by requiring increased size and weight
`due to the need for additional power conversion/transmission components a larger battery. (Ex. 2022, 104, 109, 114).
`
`Lee’s highly inefficient dual purpose transducer coil inductive charging would be so slow compared to highly efficient conductive
`charging, a POSITA would not make the modification. (Ex. 2022, 109, 142).
`
`Lee’s highly inefficient dual purpose transducer coil inductive charging would have many more serious drawbacks, including power
`lost in the form of heat, added cost, and added complexity, that would further negate any alleged motivations for the modification. (Ex.
`1022, 127).
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`9
`
`

`

`Lee’s inductive charging, especially the “dual” coil inductive charging of Lee’s Fig. 12, is
`not a suitable alternative to Gundlach’s conductive charging
`
`Lee’s dual purpose transducer coil inductive charging would not increase, in fact they would decrease, headset charging
`interoperability. (Ex. 2022, 111-114).
`
`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).
`
`The Lee embodiment comprising a dual role speaker transducer coil would require a specifically designed inductive charging
`device for proper alignment of charging and receiving coils. (Ex. 2022, 111, 115).
`
`Lee’s wireless charging pad is not disclosed as applicable to Lee’s Fig. 12 dual purpose embodiment, nor would it be, because the
`charge pad would be out of alignment (i.e., 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, 158).
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`10
`
`

`

`Lee’s inductive charging, especially the “dual” coil inductive charging of Lee’s Fig. 12, is
`not a suitable alternative to Gundlach’s conductive charging
`None of Dr. Cooperstock’s “ten other prior art examples,” (eight of which are untimely raised), involve wireless charging of
`headphones from a portable battery powered device or devices with comparable size and geometry to the Petition’s combination.
`Apple has not come forth with a single example of (1) a consumer product comparable in size and geometry constraints of
`Gundlach’s clamshell case that charges wireless from battery to battery; or (2) a headset that charges wirelessly from battery to
`battery. E.g. Ex. 2022, 95 (Explaining Powermat and Palm Pre). No one has ever made such products. (Ex. 2022, 96, 99, 134).
`The power loss, charging inefficiencies and serious design challenges explain this. (Ex. 2022, 96). Even today, earbuds protected
`by enclosed charging cases are inductively charged by the charging case.
`
`Apple’s cited wireless charging examples have wired connections that provide virtually a virtually unlimited source of wireless
`charging power. Lee itself teaches that input power source 300 from “AC line voltage.” (Ex. 1006, 3:65-67; 4:6-7; Ex. 2022, 161).
`
`All of Apple’s stated rationales for modifying Gundlach to use inductive charging would be applicable to Gundlach’s conventional,
`i.e., non-dual role coil, devices, which are depicted in Lee’s Figs. 6, 7 and 10. (Ex. 2022, 151).
`
`The only advantage proffered by Apple for using the “dual role” transducer coil design depicted in Lee’s Fig. 12 is its
`argument that Lee’s dual role coil “avoids a dedicated inductive charging coil that might introduce unnecessary bulk to the
`‘relatively thin shape’ desired by Gundlach. (Ex. 1003, 45).
`
`However, the drawbacks in terms of charging inefficiency, heat loss, design risk, complexity, and larger battery would negate
`any marginal “bulk” benefit from a dual use coil. Ex. 2022, 151. Inductor coils are made of thin wire, typically copper, and
`that such a coil would have had no meaningful effect on the size or weight of Gundlach’s earpiece or clamshell case. (Ex.
`2022, 156).
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`11
`
`

`

`The proposed Gundlach-Lee combination would drain the clamshell case battery, resulting in a highly
`undesirable charging system.
`
`The charging system taught by Lee’s Fig. 12 embodiment has no disclosed means of communication for controlling
`the charging process between the charger and earpiece. (Ex. 2022, 160)
`
`Lee’s inductive charger would continue emitting its charging field irrespective of whether the earpiece battery is
`fully charged. (Ex. 2022, 160-163).
`
`Apple’s belated Reply attempt to further modify the Petition’s use of Lee’s Fig. 12 embodiment with the control
`signals of Lee’s 14 embodiment (Ex. 1006, 5:56- 6:4) should be disregarded. In any event, adding signaling to the
`Gundlach-Lee combination would undesirably further drain the clamshell case battery. (Ex. 2022, 165).
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s improper new Lee suggestion theory should be disregarded. Irrespective, it lacks merit.
`
`Petitioner’s new theory that Lee somehow “suggests” the Gundlach-Lee combination, (Reply, 1-2), is an untimely and improper
`Reply theory that should be disregarded.
`
`Irrespective, Lee does not suggest inductive charging from a portable battery powered device, and Lee does not suggest using any
`embodiment, much less its dual-use transducer coil embodiment, for devices with the portability, size and geometry requirements
`of Gundlach’s Fig. 18 embodiment. At most, Lee’s advocacy of inductive charging versus “[w]ired methods of recharging
`batteries” might arguably suggest, if anything, some advantage, if any, over a USB cord. Ex. 1006, 1:62-2:2.
`
`While at most Lee might arguably suggest using inductive charging in some situations when corrosion, fatigue or alignment of
`electrical contacts is a problem, there is no evidence of such a problem with Gundlach devices, especially with a headset enclosed
`in a clamshell. Also, Petitioner’s expert Dr. Cooperstock and Gwee’s expert Dr. Toliyat agree that one designing a system with
`electrical contacts would account for fatigue or corrosion issues.
`
`Mis-alignment of charging contacts is not an issue for the proposed Gundlach-Lee combination, since the recessed base of
`Gundlach’s clamshell case would automatically align headset charging contacts.
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s improper new “additional rationales” theories should be disregarded. Irrespective, they lack merit.
`
`Gwee’s Dr. Toliyat notes, without meaningful rebuttal, that:
`
`(1) a POSITA would understand that energy accumulating in the magnet of the dual-purpose coil would translate into undesirable heat,
`and it could vibrate the magnet as well, which could result in undesirable noise, POR, 26; Ex. 2022, ¶136;
`(2) there has never been a commercially available portable consumer product with an inductive charging coil with a diameter as small as
`3-4mm, POR, 29; Ex. 2022, ¶141;
`(3) small coils required by the combination, even if they worked for inductive charging in view of the air gap versus diameter, would
`result in a battery charging very slowly compared to the use of conductive contacts, POR, 29; Ex. 2022, ¶142;
`(4) large air gap in relation to coil diameter would result in a very low k coefficient and a very inefficient charging, if such a system could
`charge a battery in any meaningful way at all when one compares flux path height with air gap, POR, 30; Ex. 2022, ¶143;
`(5) a POSITA would be concerned about heat due to inductive charging in closed clamshell case, POR, 31; Ex. 2022, ¶146; and
`(6) a POSITA would need significant experimentation to try to adapt Lee’s Fig. 12 embodiment in a Gundlach-Lee combination,
`especially to provide any meaningful level of charging efficiency, POR, 31; Ex. 2022, ¶148.
`
`The suggested combination, therefore, is far from being a “known method” as Petitioner now argues, and instead would involve
`significant work on the part of a POSITA to overcome all of the above-noted obstacles were the POSITA forced to attempt such a
`combination.
`
`The only “predictable results” of re-engineering Gundlach, as advocated in the Petition comprise charging inefficiency, cost, complexity,
`troublesome heat inside a closed clamshell case, and weight and size. POR, 1-3, 17-18, 24-31; Ex. 2022, ¶109, 113-114, 125-148.
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`14
`
`

`

`The Reply argument for a very different and allegedly now “feasible” design for the Lee-Gundlach combination is untimely and improper. Further, it
`is fatally flawed and there is no evidence it would work for a Gundlach headset. In any event, motivation to combine is still lacking.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply belatedly advocates moving the Gundlach speaker (as modified by Lee’s dual-purpose transducer coil) from the earpiece –as Gundlach teaches and the Petition
`advocates—to another location central to the headset, and employing an unspecified “acoustic passageway” to route sound. See Reply, 12 (citing Ex. 1089, ¶¶28-32). This Reply
`argument for a very different and allegedly now “feasible” design for the Lee-Gundlach combination, and the new exhibits it relies upon, should be disregarded.
`
`Petitioner then adds a new “acoustic passageway” between the relocated transducer coil and the earpiece. Reply, 12. See Ex. 1089, ¶31 (citing Ex. 1083, 1084, 1085). This new
`Reply argument for a very different and allegedly now “feasible” design for the Gundlach-Lee combination, and the new exhibits it relies upon, are untimely and improper, and
`they should be disregarded.
`
`Irrespective, Petitioner’s untimely Reply design is fatally flawed. The folding configuration of Gundlach’s headset relied upon by the Petition requires that the earpiece pivot
`180o about an axis “A,” i.e.,:
`
`None of the Reply exhibits (Ex. 1083-Ex. 1085, Ex. 1089) discloses an acoustic passage that allows such rotation and/or that would not be pinched and rendered non-functional
`by hinged deployment of a Gundlach earpiece. See Ex. 1083, [0048]; Ex. 1084, [0055]; Ex. 1085, [0060]. Neither the Reply nor any of its untimely Exhibits provide a solution
`for an acoustic pathway in a hinged Gundlach headset. Further, such a long pathway would decrease sound quality and require increased volume, thus further draining the
`battery.
`
`Petitioner’s belated Reply addition of a significantly larger charging coil (only possible if relocated) and new audio passage defeat Petitioner’s stated rationale for using Lee’s
`Fig. 12 device in the first place, which was to avoid “unnecessary bulk” for the “relatively thin shape” desired by Gundlach. (Ex. 1003, 45).
`
`In any event, motivation to combine is still lacking for this untimely new design. Petitioner does not dispute that even well-designed devices using optimized components such
`as relatively large, parallel coils and minimized air gaps would likely have an approximate 30% inefficiency.” Ex. 2022, ¶122.
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s electronic device and alleged “switching device” do not “selectively couple
`to each other employing magnetic force” [element 1b]
`
`The Petition alleges, incorrectly, that inductive charging constitutes coupling by employing magnetic force. (Pet. 20).
`
`However, the Lorenz force of an inductive charging field is a repulsive force, not a coupling force. (Ex. 2022, 178-181).
`
`The Petition alternately alleges that it would be obvious to add magnets to further secure Gundlach’s headset inside a clamshell
`case that is already held secure with a mechanical clasp. (Pet. 20).
`
`However, a POSITA would have no motivation to add an unnecessary magnet to further secure an
`already well secured earpiece in a clamshell case that is designed to be securely closed when the
`earpiece is present. (Ex. 2022, 174).
`
`Magnets would add unnecessary bulk and weight and would have no meaningful additional benefit. (Ex. 2022, 176). If
`Gundlach’s clamshell case was dropped with enough force to eject the earpiece, then adding an extra magnet would add no
`additional protection. (Ex. 2022, 175) .
`
`A POSITA would not want to use strong magnets on a device intended to be inserted in PC expansion slots (Ex. 2022, 175).
`
`[These same issues are applicable to elements 1e (“first magnet is fully disposed within the electronic device”) and ‘320
`element 1g (“second case is decoupled from the first case by overcoming magnetic force”) not being met.]
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petitioner has failed to prove the “electronic device comprises … an electronic circuit that is responsive to the
`switching device” [1d]
`
`Petitioner’s theory for element [1d] alleges that the wireless headset includes an electronic battery charging circuit that “manages
`charging…by taking the raw energy received by the [energy collecting] coil and providing the proper voltage to the battery … by
`transferring the energy to the battery at an appropriate voltage.” (Pet. 31).
`
`However, the portion of Lee relied upon by Apple is not disclosed by Lee to involve anything more than the passive receipt of a
`charge by a battery charging circuit. Ex. 2022, 185. DC current automatically flows from one battery to the positive pole of
`another battery. (Ex. 2022, 185).
`
`Without more details of what might constitute the switching aspect of this alleged “switching device,” a POSITA would not
`understand such passive receipt of electric current flowing automatically from negative to positive to be switching. (Ex. 2022,
`186).
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petitioner has failed to show that the portable switching device is configured to activate, deactivate, or send into
`hibernation the portable electronic device [‘021, 1g; ‘077, 1g, ‘320 1h]
`
`Apple’s first of four arguments is that “[t]he energy received by the coil [and] transferred via the battery charging
`circuit to the battery … suggests that the battery charging circuit of the headset (electronic device) is activated to an
`operative state—i.e., transferring energy to the battery—from an inoperative state—i.e., not transferring energy to
`the battery—in response to receiving energy from the clamshell case (switching device).” (Pet. 33-34).
`
`However, the portion of Lee relied upon by Apple again discloses nothing more than the passive receipt of a charge
`by the headset battery. Ex. 2022, 193. In other words, electrons are flowing through Lee’s earpiece to the positively
`charged pole of its embedded battery. (Ex. 2022, 193).
`
`Without more details of what might constitute activation, a POSITA would not understand such passive receipt of
`electric current flowing automatically from negative to positive to be activating the headset designated by Apple as
`the electronic device. (Ex. 2022, 193).
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petitioner has failed to show that the portable switching device is configured to activate, deactivate, or send into
`hibernation the portable electronic device
`
`Apple’s second argument that Lee’s switch 470 is opened, thus allowing the earpiece to go into a “charging mode,”
`which Apple characterizes as activating the earpiece, and that Lee’s switch 470 is closed, thus allowing the earpiece
`to go into a “non-charging mode,” which Apple characterizes as deactivating the earpiece. (Pet. 34).
`
`However, the portions of Lee relied upon by Apple again do not disclose more than the passive receipt (or non-
`receipt) of a charge by the headset battery. (Ex. 2022, 196). In other words, electrons are flowing through Lee’s
`earpiece to the positively charged pole of its embedded battery. (Ex. 2022, 196).
`
`Without more details of what might constitute activation, a POSITA would not understand such passive receipt of
`electric current flowing automatically from negative to positive to be activating the headset designated by Apple as
`the electronic device. (Ex. 2022, 197).
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petitioner has failed to show that the portable switching device is configured to activate, deactivate, or send into
`hibernation the portable electronic device
`
`Apple’s third argument is that “the entire Gundlach-Lee headset (electronic device) would transition from a
`deactivated state to an activated state when inserted into the charging case (switching device) with a fully depleted
`battery.” Pet., 35. A POSITA would not agree. (Ex. 2022, 199).
`
`Apple is again relying upon the passive receipt of a charge by the headset. Ex. 2022, 199. In other words, electrons
`are flowing through Lee’s earpiece to the positively charged pole of its embedded battery. (Ex. 2022, 199).
`
`Without more details of what might constitute such activation, a POSITA would not understand such passive receipt
`of electric current flowing automatically from negative to positive to be activating the headset designated by Apple
`as the electronic device. (Ex. 2022, 201).
`
`Irrespective, neither Gundlach nor Lee disclose that a headset with a dead battery would activate when the battery
`was charged. (Ex. 2022, 200). Thus, Apple has no basis to assert that “the entire Gundlach-Lee headset (electronic
`device) would transition from a deactivated state to an activated state when inserted into the charging case
`(switching device) with a fully depleted battery.” See (Pet. 35).
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petitioner has failed to show that the portable switching device is configured to activate, deactivate, or send into
`hibernation the portable electronic device
`
`Apple’s fourth argument is that a “POSITA would have been motivated to configure the clamshell charging case
`(switching device) of Gundlach-Lee to deactivate at least the battery-powered ‘headset circuit’ of the wireless
`headset (electronic device) when stored and charging.” (Pet. 34).
`
`This is unpersuasive hindsight reconstruction. (Ex. 2022, 203). Headphone/headset circuit 468 in Fig. 12 would
`control power to the headphone consistent with whether the headset itself is powered on or off using its own on/off
`controls. Ex. 2022, 203. Further, Lee’s Fig. 12 embodiment lacks any disclosed means for such control signals to be
`sent or received. Ex. 2022, 203. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion of even those control signals being used
`to power or depower the headphone. (Ex. 1006, 5:56- 6:4; Ex. 2022, 203).
`
`Without more details of what might constitute activation, deactivation or hibernation, a POSITA would not
`understand that merely turning on power to an earphone would constitute activating a Gundlach earpiece, or that
`merely turning off power to an earphone would constitute deactivating or hibernating a Gundlach earpiece. (Ex.
`2022, 204).
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`21
`
`

`

`The Gundlach case relied upon by the Petition does not have a lid “recessed to configure to the electronic device
`[‘021, Claim 7;‘077 1j, ‘320 1k]
`
`Gundlach has a beveled earpiece (see, e.g., figures at Pet. 32) and a flat/planar interior lid, as follows:
`
`This flat clamshell case lid is not configured to the beveled earpiece. (Ex. 2022, 208).
`
`Apple’s apparent alternative argument is that the base of Gundlach’s clamshell base is somehow its lid (Ex. 1003, 91) is meritless.
`(Ex. 2022, 208).
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`22
`
`

`

`None of ‘077 or ‘320 Claims 4, 5, 10, 12, or 13, or ‘021 Claims 8, 9 or 17 are obvious in view of Gundlach, Lee, and Mak-Fan
`
`Including in view of the size limitations inherent in the lip of the clamshell case, Mac-Fan’s magnetic closure
`would be significantly less secure than Gundlach’s mechanical snap fastener. (Ex. 2022, 2030).
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that a magnetic fastener would have a “lesser closure force.” (Pet. 61).
`
`The risk of damaging Gundlach’s headset counters any fictional concerns about fatigue from use of a ubiquitous
`mechanical snap fastener . (Ex. 2022, 2030).
`
`One view Mak-Fan’s less secure magnetic fastener as being potentially appropriate for Mak-Fan’s case because
`Mak-Fan’s holster-type case would be mounted on a belt, oriented vertically, and it has a frictional, elastic hold on
`an inserted phone. (Ex. 2022, 232).
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`23
`
`

`

`Mak-Fan does not supply the missing element of “wherein the lid has a second magnet disposed within it”
`(‘021 Claim 8, ‘077 Claim 4, ‘320 Claim 4)
`
`Petitioner alleges this additional element is met by combining Mak-Fan, not that it would be obvious in view of
`Mak-Fan’s teachings. Pet., 62-63.
`
`Even if POSITA would not have been motivated to replace Gundlach’s secure mechanical fastener with a less secure
`magnetic fastening system, Mak-Fan discloses a magnet 4 in the main body of its case and metal element 11 in the
`flap or lid. Ex. 1010, [0014], [0019], Fig. 1; Fig. 4; Ex. 2022, 236-238.
`
`(Ex. 2022, 230, 236; Ex. 1010, [0014], [0019], Fig. 1; Fig. 4 )
`
`For at least the same reasons, the alleged combination does not render unpatentable claims 5 or 10.
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`24
`
`

`

`Mak-Fan does not supply the missing element of “wherein the second or a third magnet is employed in the lid to
`actuate the electronic circuit” (‘021 Claim 17, ‘077 Claim 10, ‘320 Claim 10)
`
`The Petition theory for claim 10 is that “Mak-Fan further teaches a portable device with a Hall effect sensor
`responsive to a magnet”, Pet., 64 (citing Ex. 1010, [0014], [0019]), and that “…when the Hall effect sensor detects
`the magnet, the device is disabled.” (Pet. 58)
`
`However, Mak-Fan does not teach a lid having a second magnet disposed within it. Ex. 2022, 230, 236; 257; Ex.
`1010, [0014], [0019], Fig. 1; Fig. 4 ) Thus, Mak-Fan does not teach that its Hall sensor is actuated by a magnet in
`Mak-Fan’s stated lid. (Ex. 2022, 247-249).
`
`Irrespective of the fact that the Petition theory does not meet the claim element, if one would theoretically switch
`magnet 4 and metal element 11 to have metal element 11 in the main body of its case and magnet 4 in the lid, it
`would completely frustrate Mak-Fan’s design and intention, because Mak-Fan’s Hall sensor would not be actuated
`by metal element 11, and thus the Hall sensor would not perform its intended function, which Apple appears to rely
`upon for activating and deactivating. (Ex. 2022, 250).
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`25
`
`

`

`Mak-Fan does not supply the missing element of “wherein the second or a third magnet is employed in the lid to
`actuate the electronic circuit” (Claim 10)
`
`Gundlach’s electrical contacts would automatically start charging the earpiece when contact was made, irrespective
`of whether Gundlach’s clamshell lid was shut. Ex. 2022, 253. Likewise, Lee’s design and intent is for the earpiece to
`charge automatically when put in proximity to a wireless coil. Ex. 1006, 5:12-40; Ex. 2022, 253.
`
`A POSITA would favor these charging criteria because they, unlike the alleged Gundlach-Lee-Mak-Fan
`combination, would allow a POSITA to charge the earpiece when the clamshell lid is open or when a foreign
`object is preventing it from fully closing. (Ex. 2022, 253, 255).
`
`A significant part of Petitioner’s theory for the alleged Gundlach-Lee combined clamshell case being a switching
`device of element [1a] is the automatic opening of switch 470 when the earpiece is in proximity to a wireless
`charging coil, and the automatic closing of switch 470 when the earpiece is in not in proximity to a wireless charging
`coil. Ex. 2022, 254.
`
`One making the alleged Gundlach-Lee-Mak-Fan combination would not be motivated to contravene Lee’s Fig.
`12 design and intent. Ex. 2022, 255.
`
`For at least the same reasons, the alleged combination does not render unpatentable claims 5 or 10.
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`26
`
`

`

`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________________________________________
`
`IPR2021-00471, -00472, -00473
`
`Demonstratives of Patent Owner GUI Global Products, Ltd.
`
`Hearing Date: May 19, 2022
`
`Ex. 2037 - Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - Not Evidence
`
`27
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 12, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/ John J. Edmonds /
`John J. Edmonds, Reg. No. 56,184
`EDMONDS & SCHLATHER, PLLC
`2501 Saltus Street
`Houston, TX 77003
`P: 713-364-5291
`F: 713-224-6651
`E: jedmonds@ip-lit.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`
`PATENT OWNER'S ORAL HEARING DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`was served on May 12, 2022, by filing this document though the PTAB E2E System
`
`as well as by delivering a copy via email directed to the attorneys of record for the
`
`Petitioner at the following addresses:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Andrew B. Patrick
`Roberto Devoto
`Kenneth Wayne Darby Jr.
`Kim Leung
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`The parties have agreed to electronic service in this matter