`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,767,955
`)
`
`Issued: Sept. 19, 2017
`)
`
`Application No.: 14/120,197
`)
`
`Filing Date: May 5, 2014
`)
`
`
`
`For: Multi Power Sourced Electric Vehicle
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MARK ALLEN
`
`
`
`
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 001
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`
`
`
`
`CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 1
` DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED IN FORMING MY OPINIONS ............. 5
` UNDERSTANDING OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ....................................... 8
` Understanding of Legal Principles Relevant to Anticipation and
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 8
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 11
`
` OVERVIEW OF THE ’955 PATENT ....................................................... 13
`The ’955 Patent ................................................................................... 13
`
`The Challenged Claims ....................................................................... 19
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 19
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 26
`The three layers may be in any order .................................................. 26
`
`“a shield member comprising a backplate” ......................................... 28
`
` OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ......................................................... 33
` Overview—Hui-910 (Ex. 1005) .......................................................... 33
`Overview—Beart (Ex. 1006) .............................................................. 40
`
`Overview—Nakao (Ex. 1007) ............................................................. 43
`
` GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 4-6, AND 8-13 ARE ANTICIPATED
`BY HUI-910 .................................................................................................. 48
`Claims 1 and 13 are anticipated by Hui-910 ....................................... 48
`Preambles .................................................................................. 48
`
`Element 1/13[a]: permeable magnetic material layer ............... 52
`
`Element 1/13[b]: coil layer ....................................................... 56
`
`Element 1/13[c]: shield member comprising a backplate
`
`for controlling flux .................................................................... 60
`Dependent claims 4-6, 8-12 are anticipated by Hui-910 .................... 69
`Claim 4 – ordered, parallel layers ............................................. 70
`
`Claims 5 and 6 – backplate made of copper or aluminum ....... 72
`
`Claim 8 – permeable magnetic material comprises ferrite ....... 73
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 002
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims 9-12 – backplate directs/controls flux .......................... 74
`
` GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1 AND 4-13 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS OVER HUI-910 IN VIEW OF BEART ................................. 77
` Motivations to combine Hui-910 and Beart ........................................ 77
`Independent claims 1 and 13 ............................................................... 90
`
`Preambles, Elements 1/13[a]-[b] .............................................. 90
`
`Element 1/13[c]: shield member comprising backplate
`
`for controlling flux .................................................................... 90
`Dependent claims 4-12 ........................................................................ 92
`Claim 4 – ordered, parallel layers ............................................. 92
`
`Claims 5 and 6 – backplate made of copper or aluminum ....... 93
`
`Claim 7 – backplate extends beyond coil and slabs ................. 94
`
`Claim 8 – permeable magnetic material comprises ferrite ....... 95
`
`Claims 9-12 – backplate controls/directs flux .......................... 96
`
` GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1-13 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`OVER NAKAO IN VIEW OF BEART ..................................................... 98
` Motivation to combine Nakao and Beart ............................................ 98
`Independent claims 1 and 13 ............................................................. 109
`
`1.
`Preambles ................................................................................ 109
`1.
`Element 1/13[a]: permeable magnetic material layer ............. 113
`2.
`Element 1/13[b]: coil layer ..................................................... 114
`3.
`Element 1/13[c]: shield member comprising backplate
`for controlling flux .................................................................. 116
`Dependent claims 4-12 ...................................................................... 120
`Claim 2 – permeable magnetic material members
`
`arranged as bars extending radially from a common point..... 120
`Claim 3 – coil passes each permeable magnetic material
`bar at approximately center of the length of the bar ............... 122
`Claim 4 – ordered, parallel layers ........................................... 124
`
`Claims 5 and 6 – backplate made of copper or aluminum ..... 125
`
`Claim 7 – backplate extends beyond coil and slabs ............... 126
`
`Claim 8 – permeable magnetic material comprises ferrite ..... 128
`
`Claims 9-12 – backplate controls/directs flux ........................ 128
`
` CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 129
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 003
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Momentum
`
`Dynamics Corporation. (“Momentum” or “Petitioner”) in the above-captioned inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) relating to U.S. Patent No. 9,767,955 (“the ’955 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001). The ’955 patent relates to an inductive power transfer pad for receiving
`
`wireless power through inductive coupling.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that Momentum is petitioning for IPR of claims 1-13 of
`
`the ’955 patent and requests that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“PTO”) cancel those claims.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’955 patent and
`
`considered the documents identified in Section III in light of the general knowledge
`
`in the relevant art. In forming my opinions, I relied upon my education, knowledge,
`
`and experience (including my extensive research and development experience with
`
`wireless power transfer) and considered the level of ordinary skill in the art as
`
`discussed below.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at my
`
`standard consulting rate, which is $625.00 per hour, plus actual expenses. My
`
`compensation is not dependent in any way upon the outcome of this matter.
`
` Background and Qualifications
`
`5.
`
`I received a B.A. degree in Chemistry, a B.S.E. degree in Chemical
`
`
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`Engineering, and a B.S.E. degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of
`
`Pennsylvania, and a S.M. and Ph.D. (1989) from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology. From 1989 to 2013, I was a member of the faculty of the School of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering of the Georgia Institute of Technology,
`
`ultimately holding the rank of Regents' Professor and the J.M. Pettit Professorship
`
`in Microelectronics. In 2013, I joined the University of Pennsylvania faculty as the
`
`Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Electrical and Systems Engineering, as well as was
`
`named the founding director of the Singh Center for Nanotechnology at Penn.
`
`6. As
`
`discussed
`
`below, my
`
`technical
`
`expertise
`
`is
`
`in
`
`microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), microfabrication technologies for
`
`MEMS, and the application of MEMS in multiple fields. A particular research
`
`interest area of mine is the application of microfabrication technologies to magnetics,
`
`including magnetoquasistatic problems such as those inherent in near-field wireless
`
`power transfer based on magnetic field coupling.
`
`7. At the beginning of my academic career in 1989, I founded my research
`
`group, the Microsensors and Microactuators Group. This group, consisting of
`
`graduate students and postdoctoral associates of both the Georgia Institute of
`
`Technology and the University of Pennsylvania, has been in continuous existence
`
`since that time. Although the composition as well as the specific research topics of
`
`the group have changed over time, the group has maintained a focus since its
`
`2
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`founding on the development of new microfabrication technologies and their
`
`application to MEMS.
`
`8.
`
` In 1990 I began a project on integrated magnetics with my first Ph.D.
`
`student. Our group has continuously worked on magnetics projects since then, with
`
`applications including magnetic energy storage and conversion, inductors and
`
`transformers, magnetically-driven relays, magnetic generators, permanent magnets,
`
`magnetic sensors, and wireless power transfer based on magnetic coupling.
`
`9.
`
`In 1994 my student and I gave a plenary address to the IEEE Applied
`
`Power Electronics Conference and Exposition on the topic of micromachined
`
`inductors.
`
`10. Over the past three decades, our group has published its work on
`
`magnetics
`
`in multiple
`
`IEEE
`
`journals,
`
`including
`
`the
`
`IEEE Journal of
`
`Microelectromechanical Systems, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, IEEE
`
`Magnetics Letters, and IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics.
`
`11.
`
`I am co-founder of multiple MEMS-related companies, including
`
`CardioMEMS, Axion Biosystems, and EnaChip.
`
`12. CardioMEMS was founded in 2001 has commercialized wireless
`
`implantable microsensors for treatment of aneurysms and congestive heart failure –
`
`ultimately becoming the first MEMS-based medical device transducer FDA-
`
`approved for permanent human implantation. CardioMEMS received the 2006
`
`3
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`Company of the Year award from Small Times magazine and the 2006 Frost and
`
`Sullivan Patient Monitoring Product Innovation of the Year Award, and its wireless
`
`aneurysm pressure monitor was highlighted by the FDA in its 2005 ODE annual
`
`report as a cleared medical device likely to have a significant impact on patient care.
`
`CardioMEMS completed a 550-patient clinical trial for its second product, a MEMS-
`
`based wireless implantable hemodynamic monitor for patients with congestive heart
`
`failure. After receiving FDA approval for its hemodynamic monitor, CardioMEMS
`
`was acquired by St. Jude Medical (now Abbott) in 2014.
`
`13. The CardioMEMS wireless pressure sensor relies on near-field
`
`magnetic coupling between a source coil and a sensor coil, as detailed in U.S. Patents
`
`6,111,520 and 7,245,117, among others, of which I am a co-author.
`
`14. EnaChip was launched in 2017 and is focused on exploiting
`
`electroplatable, nanoengineered materials for the realization of ultracompact power
`
`supplies. In particular, Enachip is using these nanoengineered materials as the
`
`magnetic core of integrated inductors to produce multiwatt power supplies on a chip.
`
`15.
`
`I have graduated approximately 50 PhD students and approximately 24
`
`postdoctoral associates from the MSMA Group in the field of MEMS. Together with
`
`this group, I have published approximately 400 technical articles in the field of
`
`MEMS. I hold approximately sixty U.S. patents in the MEMS area.
`
`4
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`16. The work of my research group has been cited approximately 28,000
`
`times as estimated by Google Scholar.
`
`17.
`
`In addition to the above, I have maintained my leadership position
`
`within the MEMS community. I was co-chair of the 2012 Power MEMS Conference,
`
`and chair of the 2016 Solid State Sensors, Actuators, and Microsystems Conference
`
`(‘Hilton Head’). In 2021 I will chair the IEEE PwrSoC (‘Power Supply on a Chip’)
`
`conference, sponsored in part by the IEEE Power Electronics Society.
`
`18.
`
`I am a Fellow of the IEEE, with the citation “for contributions to micro
`
`and nanofabrication technologies for microelectromechanical systems.”
`
`19.
`
`I received the 2016 IEEE Daniel P. Noble award in emerging
`
`technologies, with the citation “For contributions to research and development,
`
`clinical translation, and commercialization of biomedical microsystems.”
`
`20.
`
`I was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Inventors in 2017.
`
`21. Additional details are provided in my CV, attached as Ex. 1004.
`
` Documents Considered in Forming My Opinions
`
`22.
`
`In addition to the information identified above (e.g., ¶ 3) and elsewhere
`
`in this Declaration, in forming my opinions, I have considered the following
`
`documents:
`
`Description
`Ex. No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,767,955 (“’955 patent”)
`
`5
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`Ex. No.
`Description
`1002 File History for ’955 patent (“’955 FH”)
`
`1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0189910 (“Hui-910”)
`
`1006
`
`International Publication No. WO 2005/024865 (“Beart”)
`
`1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0119576 (“Nakao”)
`
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 8,749,334 (“’334 patent”)
`
`1009 File History for ’334 patent (“’334 FH”)
`
`1010 Frederick Emmons Terman, Electronic and Radio Engineering (4th ed.
`1947) (“Terman”) (excerpts)
`
`1011 New Zealand Patent No. 274,939
`
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,501,364 (“Hui-364”)
`
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 6,350,951
`
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 8,639,191
`
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,459,218
`
`1016 Klaus Finkenzeller, RFID Handbook (Rachel Waddington trans., 2d ed.
`2003) (“RFID Handbook”) (excerpts)
`
`1017 Kathleen O’Brien, Inductively Coupled Radio Frequency Power
`Transmission System for Wireless Systems and Devices (2007) (Ph.D.
`dissertation, Technical University of Dresden) (“O’Brien”)
`
`1018 Ned Mohan, et al., Power Electronics (2d ed. 1995) (“Mohan”)
`(excerpts)
`
`1019 UK Patent Application Publication No. GB 2389720 A (“Hui-720”)
`
`1020 Xun Liu & S.Y. Ron Hui, Equivalent Circuit Modeling of a Multilayer
`Planar Winding Array Structure for Use in a Universal Contactless
`Battery Charging Platform, 22 IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics
`21 (Jan. 1, 2007) (“Liu”)
`
`6
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`Ex. No.
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Description
`
`IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to
`Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields 2 kHz to 300 GHz,
`IEEE Standard C95.1-2005 (Apr. 19, 2006) (“IEEE C95.1-2005”)
`
`International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection,
`Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic,
`and Electromagnetic Fields, 74 Health Physics 494 (1998) (“ICNIRP
`Guidelines”)
`
`1023 H. Sakamoto et al., Large Air-Gap Coupler for Inductive Charger, 35
`IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 3526 (Sept. 1999) (“Sakamoto”)
`
`1024 U.S. Patent No. No. 7,804,272 (“Morita”)
`
`1025 Chwei-Sen Wang, Design Considerations for Inductively Coupled
`Power Transfer Systems (Oct. 21, 2004) (Ph.D. thesis, University of
`Auckland) (“Wang”)
`
`1026 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0188284 (“Dobbs”)
`
`1027 Mahendra Pratap Singh & Manoj Kumar Jain, Evolution of Processor
`Architecture in Mobile Phones 90 International Journal of Computer
`Applications 34 (Mar. 2014) (“Singh”)
`
`1028 Sascha Segan, The Evolution of the Blackberry, PC Mag (Jan 28, 2013),
`https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-evolution-of-the-blackberry-from-
`957-to-z10 (“The Evolution of the Blackberry”)
`
`1029 Tom Hormby, A History of Palm, Part 1: Before the PalmPilot, Low
`End Mac (July 19, 2016), https://lowendmac.com/2016/a-history-of-
`palm-part-1-before-the-palmpilot/ (“History of Palm”)
`
`
`
`7
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 010
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
` Understanding of Legal Principles
`
` Understanding of Legal Principles Relevant to Anticipation and
`Obviousness
`I understand that a prior art reference can anticipate a patent claim when
`
`23.
`
`the prior art’s disclosure renders the recited claim elements not novel. I understand
`
`that in order to anticipate a patent claim, a prior art reference must teach each and
`
`every element of the claim, expressly or inherently, with the same arrangement as in
`
`the claims. I understand that the words of a claim are generally given the ordinary
`
`and customary meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of invention. Because a claim is interpreted according to its meaning
`
`to a person of skill in the art, the knowledge, education, and experience of that person
`
`are also relevant to determining the scope and meaning of a patent claim. I
`
`understand that, in construing terms, one must look first to the intrinsic evidence of
`
`record, which includes the patent itself (including the claims and specification) and
`
`the prosecution history. I also understand that one may consider extrinsic evidence,
`
`8
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 011
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`such as expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, though the
`
`intrinsic record is the most important.
`
`24.
`
`In analyzing anticipation, I understand that it is important to consider
`
`the scope of the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, and the scope and content
`
`of the prior art.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference can render a patent claim obvious
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art if the differences between the subject matter set
`
`forth in the patent claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter of the claim
`
`would have been obvious at the time the claimed invention was made.
`
`26.
`
`In analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is important to consider
`
`the scope of the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, and any secondary
`
`considerations.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that when the claimed subject matter involves combining
`
`pre-existing elements to yield no more than one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious. I also understand that in assessing whether
`
`a claim is obvious one must consider whether the claimed improvement is more than
`
`the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. I
`
`understand that there need not be a precise teaching in the prior art directed to the
`
`specific subject matter of a claim because one can take account of the inferences and
`
`9
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 012
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`creative steps that a person of skill in the art would employ. I further understand that
`
`a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that obviousness cannot be based on the hindsight
`
`combination of components selectively culled from the prior art. I understand that
`
`in an obviousness analysis, neither the motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`inventors controls the inquiry. Any need or problem known in the field at the time
`
`of the invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining
`
`elements, even if that reason is different from the reason(s) that subjectively led the
`
`inventor to make its claimed combination. For example, I understand that it is
`
`important to consider whether there existed at the time of the invention a known
`
`problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.
`
`I understand that known techniques can have obvious uses beyond their primary
`
`purposes, and that in many cases a person of ordinary skill can fit the teachings of
`
`multiple pieces of prior art together like pieces of a puzzle.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that, when there is a reason to solve a problem and there
`
`is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has
`
`good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. I further
`
`understand that, if this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense, which bears on whether the
`
`claim would have been obvious.
`
`10
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 013
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`30.
`
`I understand that secondary considerations can include, for example,
`
`evidence of commercial success of the invention, evidence of a long-felt need that
`
`was solved by an invention, evidence that others copied an invention, or evidence
`
`that an invention achieved a surprising or unexpected result. I further understand that
`
`such evidence must have a nexus, or causal relationship to the elements of a claim,
`
`in order to be relevant. I am unaware of any such secondary considerations for
`
`the ’955 patent. To the extent that Patent Owner puts forth any secondary
`
`considerations in these IPRs, I reserve the right to rebut those considerations with
`
`rebuttal evidence.
`
`
`31.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, possesses
`
`conventional wisdom in the art, is a person of ordinary creativity, and has common
`
`sense. I understand that this hypothetical person is considered to have the normal
`
`skills and knowledge of a person in a certain technical field (including knowledge
`
`of known problems and desired features in the field).
`
`32.
`
`I have been asked to focus my analysis on claims 1-13 of the ’955 patent,
`
`and prior art relating thereto, from the perspective of such a person at the time of the
`
`alleged inventions. I understand that the ’955 patent is a division of application no.
`
`11
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 014
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`12/451,436, which was filed on May 9, 2008, and I understand that the ’955 patent
`
`was filed on May 5, 2014.
`
`33.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the 2008 to
`
`2014 time frame would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering
`
`(or equivalent) and at least two years’ industry experience or equivalent research.
`
`Alternatively, a POSA could substitute directly relevant additional education for
`
`experience, e.g., an advanced degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent) with at
`
`least one year of industry experience.
`
`34. As of May 9, 2008, I would have qualified as at least a POSA, and my
`
`opinions herein are informed by my own knowledge based on my personal
`
`experiences and observing others of various skill levels (including those above and
`
`below the level of a POSA).
`
`35. My opinions below are not restricted to the precise definition of a
`
`POSA above. The claims of the ’955 patent are directed to common inductive power
`
`transfer and shielding techniques that were well-known in the art and taught by
`
`numerous prior art references, including the references discussed below. Thus my
`
`opinions below would apply under any reasonable definition of a POSA.
`
`12
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 015
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
` Overview of the ’955 Patent
` The ’955 Patent
`36. The ’955 patent is entitled “Multi Power Sourced Electric Vehicle” and
`
`names John Talbot Boys and Grant Anthony Covic as inventors. The ’955 patent
`
`was filed in the United States on May 5, 2014, and issued on September 19, 2017.
`
`The ’955 patent is a division of application no. 12/451,436, later issued as U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,749,334 (“’334 patent,” Ex. 1008), which was filed on May 9, 2008.
`
`The ’955 patent generally relates to “[a]n inductive power transfer pad for
`
`transmitting power to a wireless power receiver separable from the inductive power
`
`transfer pad.” ’955 patent Abstract. More particularly, the ’955 patent is directed to
`
`an inductive power transfer pad for charging the battery of an electric vehicle, where
`
`the pad comprises three layers: a coil layer, a layer of ferromagnetic slabs, and a
`
`layer of conductive material for “channeling the flow of flux from the charging pad.”
`
`Id. at Abstract, 3:51-52; see also id. at 1:18-25, 2:39-44.
`
`37. As the ’955 patent states, wireless “Inductive Power Transfer” (IPT)
`
`was already known as a “useful alternative to conventional charging” that
`
`incorporated well-known principles of energy
`
`transfer
`
`through
`
`inductive
`
`coupling. ’955 patent 2:12-24, 8:28-36, 9:62-10:4. Inductive coupling, also referred
`
`to as magnetic coupling, relates to the concept that a changing current through wire
`
`in one conductor creates a changing magnetic field that, in turn, induces a voltage
`
`13
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 016
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`and/or current in other nearby conductors. Terman (Ex. 1010) 57. In this way, power
`
`can be transferred wirelessly between the two conductors. Electromagnetic induction
`
`was not a new concept as of the time of the ’955 patent’s earliest effective filing
`
`date—it was first discovered by Michael Faraday in 1831. The ’955 patent operates
`
`on similar principles, with its two pads operating essentially as a transformer without
`
`a common core when transferring power.
`
`38. The ’955 patent is directed to improving the performance of inductive
`
`power transfer systems using its three layer pad structure, which it states will
`
`“channel[] the flow of flux from the charging pad” and “improves the inductive
`
`coupling but also reduces the chance that any undesired objects will be subjected to
`
`the induced fields during use.” ’955 patent 3:51-62. The patent also states that its
`
`three layer design is “beneficial in that it is relatively slimline compared to more
`
`conventional IPT pickups.” Id. at 3:63-65.
`
`39. An embodiment of the ’955 patent’s three layer charging pad structure
`
`is shown in annotated Figure 4 below.
`
`14
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 017
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`
`
`’955 patent Fig. 4 (annotated), 8:62-9:5; see also id. at Abstract, 2:49-50, 3:5-17.
`
`40. As annotated above, the pad includes a “metallic backplate 21” in one
`
`layer forming a shield member/backplate, “ferrite bars 22” in a separate permeable
`
`magnetic material layer, and a “coil of litz wire 27” in another coil layer, wherein
`
`the litz wire “is located on ferrite bars 22 in region 24” near the center of each bar.
`
`’955 patent 8:62-9:5; see also id. at Abstract (“The inductive power transfer pad
`
`includes a coil having at least one turn of a conductor in a first layer and a plurality
`
`of ferromagnetic slabs arranged in a second layer substantially parallel to that of the
`
`coil.”).
`
`41.
`
`I have referred to the “ferrite bars” as part of the “permeable magnetic
`
`material layer” because that is how those members are referred to in the claims,
`
`despite the word “permeable” not appearing in the specification. ’955 patent, cls. 1,
`
`15
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 018
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`13 (“one or more permeable magnetic material members in a first layer”); see also
`
`id. at cl. 8 (“The inductive power transfer pad as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one
`
`or each permeable magnetic material member comprises ferrite.”). While not
`
`explained in the ’955 patent, a POSA would have understood that permeability refers
`
`to the relationship between the magnetic flux density and magnetic field intensity in
`
`a material, and is generally denoted using the Greek letter µ. The permeability µ of
`
`a material is the product of the relative permeability µr and the permeability of free
`
`space, µ0. Some authors use µ as the symbol for µr, with the understanding that
`
`relative permeability is being referred to clear from the context. For example, in such
`
`cases, a typical soft magnetic material might be referred to as having a ‘permeability
`
`or µ much greater than 1’. Using this notation, the permeability of ferrite would have
`
`been known to be much greater than 1, and thus it would have been (and still is)
`
`referred to as a permeable magnetic material. See, e.g., O’Brien (Ex. 1017) 82
`
`(referring to a “1mm thick sheet of ferrite” with permeability “µ=1000”); see also
`
`discussion and citations in Element/Step 1/15[a] of Ground 1 below.
`
`42. The ’955 patent states that the backplate 21 in Figure 4 above is
`
`“formed from a material which substantially inhibits the passage of magnetic flux,”
`
`which is “aluminum in a preferred embodiment.” ’955 patent 8:62-65, 3:28-31. The
`
`inhibited magnetic flux is the flux that is generated by current flowing through the
`
`litz coil, which the ’955 patent states is “channeled” by the metallic backplate so that
`
`16
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 019
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`flux is directed “upwards from the plane of the backplate with less splay of flux in
`
`and parallel to the plane of the backplate.” ’955 patent 3:51-56. In other words, flux
`
`that would otherwise go “down” from the litz coil (as the pad is shown in Figure 4
`
`above) would be inhibited by the metallic backplate 21, such that the flux is primarily
`
`directed “upwards” from the plane of the backplate. Id. The ’955 patent states that
`
`the backplate thus provides “improved coupling between a charging pad and a
`
`pickup pad.” Id. at 9:15-21. The ’955 patent also states that the backplate can be
`
`coupled to (or formed integrally with) an “aluminum strip 25” that can “assist in
`
`controlling the pattern of the flux generated.” ’955 patent 9:5-7, 3:32-33. A POSA
`
`would have understood that using conductive shielding materials, like copper or
`
`aluminum, to control and prevent leakage flux was not new. For example, Dr.
`
`Frederick Terman’s seminal textbook Electronic and Radio Engineering, Fourth
`
`Edition (published in 1947), was directed to describing the “basic tools of the
`
`electronic and radio engineer” (Ex. 1010, “Terman” at Preface) and taught:
`
`The most practical shield for magnetic flux at radio frequencies is
`made of material having low electrical resistivity, such as copper or
`aluminum. Magnetic flux in attempting to pass through such a shield
`induces voltages in the shield which give rise to eddy currents. These
`eddy currents oppose the action of the flux, and in large measure
`prevent its penetration through the shield.
`
`17
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 020
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Inter Partes Review of USP 9,767,955
`
`Terman 35, Fig. 2-19; see also id. at 3 (classifying frequencies down to 10 kHz as
`
`radio frequencies).
`
`43.
`
`I also note that the embodiments of the specification and the control of
`
`flux by the backplate is entirely with reference to the IPT pad that transmits power,
`
`whereas the independent claims of the ’955 patent both recite the structure of an IPT
`
`pad that receives power. Compare ’955 patent Abstract (“An inductive power
`
`transfer pad for transmitting wireless power . . .”), 1 2:17-18 (“This charger provides
`
`many advantages . . . .”), 8:37-61 (describing a “charging pad”), with id. at cls. 1, 13.
`
`In the specification, the receiving (or “pickup”) IPT pad is only discussed as being
`
`“preferably of the same shape and configuration of charging pad 20.” ’955 patent
`
`8:37-42, 8:56-61 (“Note that the pickup pad i