`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 32
`Entered: June 15, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD., D/B/A GWEE,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: May 19, 2022
`__________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`KARL RENNER, ESQ.
`ANDREW PATRICK, ESQ.
`KIM LEUNG, ESQ.
`KENNETH DARBY, ESQ.
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue, S.W.
`Washington, DC 20024
`(202) 626-6447
`renner@fr.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`TAREK FAHMI, ESQ.
`Ascenda Law Group, P.C.
`2150 N. First Street
`San Jose, CA 95131
`(866) 877-4883
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`JOHN EDMONDS, ESQ.
`Edmonds & Schlather, PLLC
`2501 Saltus Street
`Houston, TX 77003
`(713) 364-5291
`jedmonds@ip-lit.com
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on May 19, 2022,
`commencing at 10:00 a.m. EDT, via videoconference.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`10:00 a.m.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good morning, this is the consolidated hearing
`
`for IPRs 2021-00471, 472 and 473 between Petitioner, Apple, and Patent
`
`Owner, GUI Global Products. I am Judge Medley and with me are Judges
`
`McShane, Ullagaddi. At this time, we'd like the parties to please introduce
`
`counsel for the record beginning with petitioner.
`
`MR. RENNER: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Karl Renner
`
`from Fish & Richardson and I'm joined by Kenneth Darby also from Fish &
`
`Richardson and Andrew Patrick and Kim Leung.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And will you be presenting arguments today,
`
`Mr. Renner?
`
`MR. RENNER: I will, Your Honor. Thank you.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. Okay and for patent owner?
`
`MR. FAHMI: Good morning, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good morning.
`
`MR. FAHMI: This is Tarek Fahmi on behalf of the patent owner.
`
`With me is the lead counsel, Jeffrey (Telephonic interference.)
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Mr. Fahmi, you're breaking up.
`
`MR. FAHMI: Okay, I'll see if there's a problem I can fix.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes, I'm only hearing like every few words that
`
`you're saying.
`
`MR. HAYWOOD: Okay, let me check my settings here.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, we'll go ahead then and I'll just keep
`
`rolling with the introduction. I'd like to remind the parties that this hearing
`
`is open to the public and the resulting transcript will be available to the
`
`public. Each party has 60 minutes total time to present arguments. The
`
`petitioner will proceed first and may reserve some of its argument time to
`
`respond to arguments presented by patent owner. Thereafter, patent owner
`
`will respond to petitioner's presentation and may reserve argument time for
`
`surrebuttal.
`
`The parties are reminded that any responsive argument presented
`
`must respond only to the arguments made by opposing counsel in the
`
`previous presentation. Are there any questions regarding the presentation
`
`order?
`
`MR. RENNER: No, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And petitioner, do you wish to reserve
`
`some of your time to respond?
`
`MR. RENNER: I would. I'd like to reserve 30 minutes, please.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And then patent owner, do you wish to
`
`reserve time to respond?
`
`MR. FAHMI: Yes, please, Your Honor, 20 minutes.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And just to let you know we will take a
`
`brief break following petitioner's initial presentation. Petitioner, when you
`
`are ready, you may proceed.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`
`MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honor. We'll leave the record for
`
`reference instead of showing slides, but if there's anything you'd like me to
`
`show on the screen, please just let me know. I'll direct you, please, to our
`
`demonstratives at slide two, where you'll find a table of contents for them.
`
`In that table of contents, you'll see that we've offered roughly 90 slides
`
`today. We're not planning to walk through those laboriously. We'll instead
`
`be focusing our attention primarily on Issue Number One in the slides,
`
`relating to Issue Number One. That issue, of course, dominated the written
`
`record with nearly half the pages offered by the patent owner's response and
`
`the surreply given to the issue of combined ability. So, getting right to that
`
`if we could, I'd move to slide four please. One moment please.
`
`The primary reference here Gundlach is shown here and one
`
`moment, if I could please, Your Honor, I've got a technical issue on my side.
`
`If I could pause for a second, I've got to get something right here on the
`
`slides. One moment please.
`
`MR. SLAY: Hello? I'm afraid your system's on mute. I'm not sure
`
`if you have a local mute button.
`
`MR. RENNER: It is, Your Honor, sorry about that. We're trying to
`
`get a technical issue resolved on the machine that I've gotten from you. Just
`
`one moment, if I could please.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: If it's helpful, we have the slides. You could
`
`just call out the slides that you are looking at and we can proceed that way.
`
`And you're muted, if you're trying to talk.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`
`MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honor. We're going to go ahead
`
`and go with that as our approach. My apologies for the delay. Okay. Well,
`
`so on slide four, what we have is Gundlach is presented here and some
`
`excerpts from the Cooperstock first declaration. The reason we show this
`
`slide is really just to introduce Your Honors, or reintroduce, you to the
`
`primary reference Gundlach. When doing so, you can see in figure 1 it
`
`shows a host device in the upper left and that's in communication, wireless
`
`communication you can see from the line 108, with what is the housing and
`
`the earpiece of the wireless device 100. There's two different pieces to that
`
`device and that'll become important to what we're talking about as we move
`
`through.
`
`If you look at slide five, please, with me, you'll see other excerpts
`
`from Dr. Cooperstock's first declaration. Here, what we are going to look at,
`
`is that Cooperstock offered its wireless headset in response to a perceived
`
`need, two perceived needs in fact. The first of which was to keep track, and
`
`you can see this quoted in the second highlighted line of the Cooperstock
`
`declaration, keep track of headsets that lack wires. The second was to keep
`
`track of them or to keep them charged and ready for use. The remainder of
`
`that Cooperstock declaration, that is excerpted there from paragraph 26,
`
`speaks of the need for disclosure of an expandable collapsible headset with a
`
`relatively thin shape of headsets to be stored and charged again in a portable
`
`cradle. So, it's seeking to have something that keeps track and allows for
`
`charge and ready use.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`
`Slide six shows us figures 18a and b from Gundlach. Here you see
`
`that cradle that's depicted. The cradle serves both of those noted goals. In
`
`the first instance, it serves the goal of storage. You have opposing lids on
`
`that clamshell case, the top and the bottom of it, they oppose one and other
`
`and they protect that headset. They also keep it in stored capacity. The
`
`second is regarding storage and you can see 1843 is the lead line shown
`
`there to demonstrate that there's a connecting port and that's a connecting
`
`port into which a cable can be plugged to accommodate and AV charge from
`
`a wall or some external power source.
`
`Now we know that the Gundlach it has got recesses in each of its lids
`
`and those accommodate the headset and the bottom of those prevents lateral
`
`movement of that headset when it's inserted into that case, so that it's very
`
`snuggly secured there. And in the sense that it's going to help you when you
`
`integrate what we'll see in Lee, an inductive charge you're going to be able
`
`to maintain the position of that headset within that case so you can maintain
`
`a close proximity of the wires where they need to be for induction.
`
`Turning to Lee, slide seven, we ask ourselves what does Lee bring to
`
`the table? We hope it's been clear from the record that it's focused on
`
`technologies relating to charging of headsets. In particular, Lee it highlights
`
`the benefits of charging headsets inductively and how doing so addresses
`
`problems that it identifies, Lee itself identifies, with solutions like those in
`
`Gundlach that are conductive, wired. To the right, we can see an excerpt
`
`from Lee's disclosure in the background where it speaks to this. After that
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`highlighted text or right in it and after it, we can see Lee identifies
`
`opportunities to address a couple of the issues that it sees or notifies us that
`
`exist with respect to wired or conductive methods of charging. According to
`
`Lee, those includes size issues and increased size that comes with the
`
`components that are necessary for conductive, including the ports that
`
`accommodates the wires. There's failure issues with regard to, for instance,
`
`fatigue and corrosion of elements, particularly when they're put in a setting
`
`as earpieces are in your head, which there is naturally some moisture, and
`
`convenience. There are complexities that are reduced when you move away
`
`from induction and wired solutions.
`
`Now if we look further, slide 10, what we can see is we start talking
`
`here about the combination of the Gundlach and Lee references.
`
`Interestingly, both of them you can see, they share some common attributes.
`
`They both disclose the use, for instance, of charging cases that act as power
`
`adapters no less between the power source and that wired headset. Each one
`
`of them has this. But, as mentioned, Lee proposes to change, that is to
`
`improve, conventional conducting charging of the type found in Gundlach,
`
`with inductive coupling for power transfer that's discussed.
`
`In slide 11, we in the petition, detail exactly how this would work.
`
`Slide 11 shows you, in fact, the picture that comes about of page 13 of the
`
`petition. In the proposed Gundlach combination, it's not an unlikely
`
`combination, it's not surprising to see inductive charging, circuitry of Lee,
`
`that's used instead of the conductive charging components in Gundlach and
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`the base of the Gundlach system or the headset. That is demonstrated
`
`graphically in the picture on the right-hand side that we produce is that Lee's
`
`circuit is actually imposed just from a figurative standpoint on that body
`
`housing of Gundlach, illustrated using Gundlach's figure 2c. Now despite
`
`inferences from Gwee throughout the record otherwise, this proposed
`
`combination importantly it shows you, on the right-hand side there, that
`
`Lee's dual-purpose coils, the coils that it actually uses for the inductive
`
`charging, those are within Gundlach's headset body. Notice that they're not
`
`in the earpiece, for instance, they're in that body itself.
`
`Now if you look at slide 12, please. Beyond what we think is rather
`
`overt directives by Lee to improve the conductivity and the charging that's
`
`found in systems like Gundlach through the integration of inductive
`
`charging, the petition offered four, as they're shown here in this slide,
`
`distinct rationales that would drive a person of ordinary skill to consider, and
`
`actually be moved, to combine that Lee technology into Gundlach. We're
`
`going to address each of those in the forthcoming slides.
`
`Slide 13 starts us down the path of the first of them. Here we show
`
`that a POSITA would pursue the Gundlach Lee combination because in the
`
`first instance, inductive charging was after all known as an alternative to
`
`conductive charging. Now inductive charging isn't new, no one suggests
`
`that it is in this record. It was described more than a century ago. But a
`
`critical date, what's important and we believe this record bears it out, as we'll
`
`talk about, inductive charging was a known alternative as mentioned to this
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`conductive charging. If we look at slide 14, we can see excerpts or just
`
`slight pictures and tables that come right out of the record. It shows 17
`
`different patent references on record that show inductive charging being
`
`used in conjunction with small handheld devices of the type that are at issue
`
`here.
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: Counsel, I'm sorry to interrupt.
`
`MR. RENNER: Yes?
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: This is Judge McShane. Just a quick one on
`
`that, the patent owner argues here that several of the exhibits, I think it's
`
`1070 through 1080, are new and untimely and I can't tell actually, some of
`
`these are so small, I can't tell if they're embedded in there. But, be that as it
`
`may, what do you say about this issue about them being untimely?
`
`MR. RENNER: No, I'm glad you asked that, Your Honor, because
`
`that was an issue that was put into the record in dispute on the patent owner's
`
`surreply. We don't believe that that issue is actually meritorious here. Our
`
`position is that these proceedings as adversarial in nature as they are, they're
`
`proceedings that are designed for parties to raise issues and then parties to
`
`further the contentions as it relates to those issues that there's never been a
`
`question about. We don't believe there's a legitimate question about the
`
`combination that we brought forward. The way that it works, it's inductive
`
`that comes and there have been questions raised thereafter by patent owner
`
`about whether or not inductive charging is something that people of skill
`
`would bring in. We believe it perfectly appropriate in these circumstances
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`and the law, we think, bears out. Responding to that would include a
`
`demonstration not only of an articulated position, but we help the record by
`
`providing evidence to lay the foundation for why we're saying what we're
`
`saying. But we thought that the Lee reference itself, for instance, it
`
`demonstrates that people of skill at the time, they note inductive charging.
`
`We're just further corroborating the evidence in the record. (Simultaneous
`
`speaking.)
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: Right, well I think that's the point. That
`
`initially in the petition you put in some evidence on this point on this issue,
`
`so why didn't you put it all in up front? So, that's just a comment not a
`
`question. Thank you.
`
`MR. RENNER: No, I appreciate it. Just one further comment on
`
`that it's, we believe, always a matter of degree. At what point is enough
`
`enough and we thought we had enough is enough, but since there were
`
`questions that seemed to be lingering, we wanted to make sure that there
`
`wasn't a question on the record. Another idea on that is that, Dr.
`
`Cooperstock put in a supplemental declaration, so these references weren't
`
`put in nakedly, we actually offered them with his explanation. The idea
`
`there was that we would offer him up for deposition, which we did, and
`
`there weren't questions asked about these. There was ample opportunity by
`
`the patent owner if they wanted to explore this and some of the other issues
`
`to have done so, we believe.
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: Okay, thank you.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`
`MR. RENNER: You're quite welcome. Thank you for the question.
`
`I believe we were about to turn from slide 14, a little crowded as it may be,
`
`to slide 15 and speak to one other example of record evidence that
`
`substantiates the same point. This evidence comes from patent owner itself
`
`and basically even the Gwee evidence, we believe it confirms that inductive
`
`charging was a known alternative as can be seen here.
`
`We're looking at the clip here that is from a Wireless Power
`
`Consortium document. If you look at paragraph two on the left hand side in
`
`the introduction of that very document, you can see that the first sentence
`
`references inductive charging. It's talking about the inductive coupling as a
`
`method by which it says efficient, versatile, wireless power can be achieved.
`
`Now when we look at that, I think it's notable to reflect on the fact that it
`
`tells us inductive charging is characterized both as efficient and as versatile.
`
`There's not a debate over this in the mind's eye of the author here and this is
`
`a consortium brought together by industry experts to write this. So they
`
`believe it's efficient, whether or not it's as efficient as anything else or not, it
`
`is efficient in the eyes of this audience, and versatile, convenient.
`
`Now more important that either of those two things is these I don't
`
`believe that's an accident to tell us that inductive coupling is a method by
`
`which efficient, versatile wireless power can be achieved. Not saying might
`
`be or might someday be or could possibly be in a different setting, they're
`
`just saying it can be. It's a confident statement. It tells us there's no room
`
`for doubt, according to the consortium. So, again, the third party here
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`speaking much like all of the patent literature we have on record, to the fact
`
`that this inductive coupling in this setting is really nothing that's
`
`extraordinary.
`
`If we move to slide 16, please. We get to the second rationale that
`
`was offered as early as the petition on combined ability and the POSITA
`
`would pursue, we think, the Gundlach Lee combination because after all,
`
`inductive charging it enhances reliability. This was a topic that was well
`
`discussed in the record pretty amply because as articulated by even Lee,
`
`expressly that is, in the top right clip you can see in the middle of the slide
`
`here, you can see an excerpt from Lee. I'm going to quote from that. I'll
`
`start in the yellow highlighted section. It said wired methods, that would be
`
`the conductive type of Gundlach, now you skip down a line or two lines
`
`actually to the word increase, so wired methods increase the risk of failure
`
`via failure of mechanical components caused by fatigue and corrosion. This
`
`is Lee, this is the secondary reference itself, it's not a third party reference.
`
`It's literally the reference that's being used in the combination. It's telling us
`
`what we all pretty much know, wireless interfaces fail from stress and
`
`fatigue. Exposed contacts degrade from corrosion. These are concepts that
`
`are undeniable really and even Gundlach appreciates the fatigue problem.
`
`Your Honors may recall in the POPR, it was written about that
`
`Gundlach has the ability to put in place an adaptor, figure 9a and b of
`
`Gundlach show a special adapter that can be used to reduce stresses and
`
`fatigues of the type that are being talked about here. Gundlach knew about
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`them, but as you aptly noted in the institution decision, reduce doesn't mean
`
`altogether eliminate. Even when Gundlach is used to "reduce" these, it still
`
`is the case that some fatigue remains because after all, we're still using wires
`
`and ports and things of the like. As such, there are still stresses in the
`
`system, unless you move to a solution like, for instance, the one Lee in
`
`criticizing this and then offering itself a different kind of charging inductive
`
`eliminates those wires and those ports. That's an enhancement to reliability.
`
`If we look at slide 17, we have several other record references that
`
`acknowledge similar improvements when discussing headsets, hearing aids
`
`and the like. In the upper left, you can see Dr. Cooperstock through
`
`reference to the 986, that's the 7,211,986 patent, he's saying as much. That
`
`patent we excepted over on the right hand side as well as two others that he
`
`references. When we look at the highlighted language in that excerpt from
`
`that patent, we can see similar evidence of the same. It says there, exposed
`
`metal contacts on headsets risk contamination that may cause corrosion,
`
`electrical leakage, power loss and the like. These concepts are not, again,
`
`unknown to those of skill and these concepts are, as Lee says, completely
`
`handled through an inductive solution like it offers.
`
`If we move to slide 18, we get to the third rationale that we had
`
`expressed with regard to a POSITA pursuing the Gundlach Lee combination.
`
`Here, this talks about Lee's dual purpose coil being advantageous,
`
`predictable and feasible. Lee offers multiple examples, a whole host of them
`
`in fact when you look through its disclosure, in configurations and circuits
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`for replacing conductive charge designs of the type that are found in
`
`Gundlach.
`
`Some of those have circuits that use two distinct coils. That's just
`
`one of the types of solutions that is made with one being used for producing
`
`sound for a speaker, the other being used for charging. But others, like the
`
`solution that's found in figure 12 here, they have a dual purpose coil where
`
`in the first mode, that single coil operates as a transducer to produce sound
`
`for the speaker and in the second mode, it operates to enable inductive
`
`charge to be communicated. Now this comes with fewer components
`
`because you can imagine if nothing else, there's only one coil not two, but
`
`there is other supporting circuitry as well and those advantages that flow are
`
`simplification and reduced size and weight that are talked about, in fact, in
`
`Lee itself.
`
`If we go to slide 22, we see that Lee wasn't the first to introduce such
`
`a dual purpose coil configuration. This is something Dr. Cooperstock notes,
`
`if you look at the second sentence in his paragraph 24 excerpt here. As the
`
`general idea of being the use of the single conductive charging coil for
`
`multiple purposes was found in none other than the wireless, again, power
`
`consortium standard for inductive charging. This is not a new concept. This
`
`is something people of skill knew was an option, and an option that had
`
`advantages.
`
`Other examples of the same, that is the dual of the multiple purpose
`
`inductive coils, is described in patents that were shown to the right, for
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`instance, and cited also by Cooperstock as corroborating. The point is that
`
`the dual purpose coil configuration was well understood. It was known by
`
`skill to be feasible, predictable and offer some advantages and so its
`
`integration not only was one of the multiple options that was offered by Lee
`
`expressly, the secondary reference, but it's one that actually comes with
`
`additional advantage relative to those others that are offered by Lee as well.
`
`If we look at slide 23, we get to the fourth rationale, that is the fourth
`
`way a POSITA would have been led to pursue Gundlach Lee's combination.
`
`This one relates to Lee's inductive charging configuration. It's promoting of
`
`interoperability between devices. You can see that in Lee itself when you
`
`look at the graphics that are shown here in the upper right. You've got a
`
`charge pad, a case, a speaker, each of which being a different kind of device
`
`with which the wireless headset can interoperate. This is interoperability.
`
`If we look at slide 24, we see this benefit isn't isolated to Lee. It's
`
`not Lee's imagination. We turn back to yet again the Wireless Power
`
`Consortium. We looked at that industry collective (Telephonic
`
`interference.) they tell us that interoperability is also something on their
`
`mind and I'll quote from the highlighted sentence on the right hand side, "for
`
`ease of use and the benefit of both designers and consumers, the Wireless
`
`Power Consortium (WPC), has developed a standard that creates
`
`interoperability." Not they might one day consider it. Not they would think
`
`it's possible maybe. They have created the standard that actually is said by
`
`the consortium itself to create interoperability.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`
`The interoperability we're talking about here is something that would
`
`very much benefit Gundlach. After all, if we look at slide 25, we can see
`
`this is again, a paragraph that is from the Dr. Cooperstock declaration.
`
`Looking at the highlighted language here, and I'm just going to go ahead and
`
`put that in front of us all, "specifically designed it is the conductive mating
`
`contacts as described by Gundlach, would require matching connectors or
`
`special designed cases." Moving further into that highlighted section, the
`
`specific design solution disclosed in Gundlach's figure 9 and this is where
`
`they had an adapter to try to deal with the fatigue that we talked about
`
`earlier, that involves the special adapter that mitigates the risk in mechanical
`
`failure, but it also worsens the headset from an interoperability standpoint.
`
`Without the adapter, Gundlach's headset cannot be charged by the
`
`ubiquitous mini cables.
`
`The point being here, there either done if they, don't if they don't if
`
`you will. Without the adapter, we know that Gundlach benefits from the
`
`improvements of reliability and even interoperability because the wires if
`
`their exposed, even Gundlach sees them as subject to fatigue. With the
`
`adapter, we see the benefits both for the improvement of reliability that
`
`would still remain, remember it only reduces, not eliminates that reliability
`
`issue, but also improvements for interoperability.
`
`Now before or as we wrap up combined ability, I wanted to offer just
`
`a couple more general observations. If we could go to slide six together,
`
`turn to that. I'm going to do the old style paper move here. You'll see the
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`figure here on slide six shows the case in Gundlach of course. Now the
`
`combination here, what I want to note, is the combination here it did not
`
`contemplate a battery in resulting clamshell cradle. That clamshell cradle
`
`here is not the point of the changes that are being made in the combination.
`
`We take that clamshell from Gundlach, figures 18a and b, and we see here
`
`the wireless headset is merely inserted into it in the same way that Gundlach
`
`had inserted the headset in its disclosure. It's worth noting because as you
`
`look at how that's done, you'll notice that that clamshell holds onto that
`
`wireless headset firmly in place. But you'll also note is that case is described
`
`as only optionally having a power supply or battery. I'll read a sentence that
`
`spans pages four and five of Gundlach that makes this point. It says the
`
`case, and this is talking about the figure 18a and b case if you're in
`
`Gundlach, the case may contain a reserve power supply such as a reserve
`
`battery and charging circuitry. That sentence began the case may, it's not
`
`saying that that case has to have one. It's not saying that it needs to have one
`
`and frankly it's not part and parcel to the combination we're bringing
`
`forward.
`
`When looking at the petition, you're going to find nothing bringing
`
`that battery into the combination of the inductive clamshell cradle that we
`
`proposed, rather the combination describes a cradle used for storage and able
`
`to allow charging, certainly facilitate charging through port 1843 by external
`
`storage if, and when, it's plugged in. So the patent owner's suggestion that
`
`the combination cradle has a battery is baseless as are the arguments
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`disparaging combined ability based on the existence of a battery in the case
`
`itself.
`
`The second point I would make is about efficiency. In the record
`
`you see a lot of efficiency. Patent owner indicates it's well known, they say,
`
`that efficiency differences of roughly 30 percent exist between wired or
`
`conductive charging solutions of the type that are in Gundlach and those that
`
`are of Lee, the inductive type of Lee. Aware of this, the patent owner, they
`
`argue that a POSITA would not modify the Gundlach with Lee. It wouldn't
`
`do that because after all it wouldn't want to suffer that kind of displacement
`
`in efficiency. But the patent owner fails to explain why Lee itself promotes
`
`the replacement of conductive with inductive, if after all, a POSITA would
`
`add, as they submit, be held to the efficiency bit and the concerns over it
`
`from such a replacement. We believe this suggestion is really belied by the
`
`validity's disclosure itself. Lee does very affirmatively indicate that you
`
`should make such a change at a time when inductive was not a new
`
`technology at all, the technology had been in place and it justifies. So, by
`
`talking about problems that conductive charging solutions have, we've talked
`
`about those here today and solutions that are brought forward in the
`
`inductive realm, reliability, fatigue, corrosion, debris, safety, convenience
`
`and interoperability. The list goes on of the different things that are
`
`accomplished when you do bring to bear interoperability. The point being,
`
`people of skill, they were well aware as patent owner puts forth of efficiency
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`