Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 27
`Date: October 12, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOMENTUM DYNAMICS CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WITRICITY CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and SCOTT RAEVSKY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`
`(Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–8 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,306,635 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’635 patent”). WiTricity Corp. (“Patent
`
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). Based on
`
`these submissions, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–8 (Paper
`
`7, “Decision” or “Dec.”). Subsequent filings include a Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 9, “PO Resp.”) and a Petitioner Reply (Paper 11, “Reply”).
`
`An oral hearing was held on August 3, 2022, and a copy of the transcript
`
`was entered into the record. Paper 26 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction over this proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
`
`After considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, we determine
`
`that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–
`
`8 of the ’635 patent are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). We issue this
`
`Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`
`
`A. The ’635 patent
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`The ’635 patent relates to systems for “wireless energy transfer” using
`
`“coupled electromagnetic resonators.” Ex. 1001, 1:11, 4:16–17. These
`
`systems can be used to power many household devices, industrial devices,
`
`and commercial devices, and may be used in vehicle charging applications.
`
`Id. at 1:17–18, 6:3–4.
`
`The systems attempt to “minimize or reduce the electric and magnetic
`
`fields at a distance away from the system.” Id. at 51:29–31. To illustrate,
`
`Figure 40 of the ’635 patent is reproduced below:
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 40 depicts a system with dipole cancellation using multiple source
`
`resonators. Id. at 3:64–65. Each resonator may include an inductive or
`
`capacitive element. Id. at 8:38–42. The system includes two source
`
`resonators (source 1, source R) and a device resonator (device 1). Id. at
`
`52:36–39. The first source resonator (source 1) converts electrical energy
`
`from an energy source into oscillating magnetic fields that may be captured
`
`by the device resonator (device 1) to effectuate wireless power transfer to a
`
`device coupled with the device resonator (device 1). See id. at 7:4–18. The
`
`purpose of the additional resonator (source R) is to cancel the dipole
`
`moment far from the system. Id. at 52:38–39. The additional resonator
`
`(source R) accomplishes this using current that is exactly or substantially out
`
`of phase with the source resonator (source 1). Id. at 52:39–42.
`
`
`
`To get the most cancellation, source 1 and source R can be designed
`
`with identical or near identical sizes and have an equal number of wires,
`
`with dipole orientations that are substantially the same, and with
`
`substantially the same amount of current. Id. at 52:42–47. This design
`
`performs better when the centers of the wireless power system and the
`
`source R are not very far from each other. Id. at 53:3–5.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`
`B. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–8 of the ’635 patent. Claim 1 is
`
`illustrative:1
`
`1. A system for wireless power transfer, comprising:
`
`[a] a first source magnetic resonator comprising a conductive first
`coil having one or more loops coupled to at least one capacitor;
`
`[b] a second source magnetic resonator comprising a conductive
`second coil having one or more loops, the second source magnetic
`resonator positioned at a non-zero distance from the first source
`magnetic resonator; and
`
`[c] a device magnetic resonator positioned closer to the first source
`magnetic resonator than to the second source magnetic resonator,
`
`wherein during operation of the system:
`
`[d] a first current flowing in the first source magnetic resonator
`generates a first magnetic field that couples to the device
`magnetic resonator to transfer operating power to the device
`magnetic resonator, and the magnetic field has a first dipole
`moment;
`
`[e] a second current flowing in the second source magnetic
`resonator generates a second magnetic field having a second
`dipole moment, wherein a direction of the first dipole moment
`is substantially opposite to a direction of the second dipole
`moment; and
`
`[f] wherein the first and second source magnetic resonators are
`positioned so that the second magnetic field at least partially
`cancels the first magnetic field outside a spatial region through
`which power is transferred from the first source magnetic
`resonator to the device magnetic resonator.
`
`
`1 For convenience, we use Petitioner’s element labeling. See Pet. 12.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`
`C. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 2),
`
`supported by the declaration of Dr. David Arnold (Ex. 1003):2
`
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`1–8
`
`1–8
`
`
`
`1023
`
`Kanno4
`
`103(a)
`
`Kanno
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles of Law
`
`Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic
`
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information
`
`presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have
`
`been obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a).
`
`To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim
`
`element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art
`
`reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`2 Patent Owner did not submit an expert declaration in support of its Patent
`Owner Response.
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 effective March 16,
`2013. Because the challenged patent was filed before March 16, 2013, we
`refer to the pre-AIA version of §§ 102, 103. The parties do not dispute that
`the pre-AIA statutes apply.
`4 U.S. Patent No. 8,698,350 B2, issued Apr. 15, 2014 to Kanno (“Kanno”)
`(Ex. 1005).
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`2008). The prior art need not, however, use the same words as the claims.
`
`In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The anticipation
`
`inquiry takes into account the literal teachings of the prior art reference, and
`
`inferences the ordinarily skilled person would draw from it. Eli Lilly and
`
`Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr., 849
`
`F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`A claim is unpatentable as obvious if “the differences between the
`
`subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`
`matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007)
`
`(quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). We resolve the question of obviousness based
`
`on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the
`
`level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of
`
`nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`We apply these principles to the Petition’s challenges.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`We review the grounds of unpatentability in view of the
`
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that
`
`[a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . at the time of the
`purported invention would have had a Bachelor’s degree in
`electrical engineering, physics, or an equivalent field, 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
`relating to the design of circuits using inductive coupling, or an
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`
`advanced degree in electrical engineering, physics, or an
`equivalent field with at least one year of industry experience.
`
`Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–11).
`
`Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in the art. We are
`
`persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and
`
`solutions in the ’635 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s
`
`definition of the level of skill, except that we delete the phrase “at least” to
`
`avoid including an expert in the definition of the level of skill.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In inter partes review, we construe claims using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil
`
`action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in
`
`accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`
`pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020).
`
`Petitioner does not propose any claim constructions. Pet. 13. Patent
`
`Owner proposes a construction for the phrase, “the first magnetic field
`
`outside a spatial region through which power is transferred from the first
`
`source magnetic resonator to the device magnetic resonator” in claim 1. PO
`
`Resp. 5–7.
`
`a. “the first magnetic field outside a spatial region through which
`power is transferred from the first source magnetic resonator to
`the device magnetic resonator”
`
`Patent Owner contends that the proper construction of “the first
`
`magnetic field outside a spatial region through which power is transferred
`
`from the first source magnetic resonator to the device magnetic resonator” is
`
`“far-field radiation.” PO Resp. 5. Specifically, Patent Owner contends that
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`the specification “distinguishes far-field radiation from near-field radiation.”
`
`Id. at 6. Patent Owner relies on the following arguments and quotations
`
`from the specification to support its construction:
`
`“[t]he fields that need to be minimized or reduced can be either
`the far-field, or the near-field” and “that the fields far from the
`system are substantially different than the fields close to the
`system.” EX1001, 51:33–43.
`
`The ’635 patent explains that “it is possible to tune these two
`sets of fields fairly independently, ensuring that the fields far
`from the system are weak, or reduced, without drastically
`reducing the performance (efficiency, amount of power
`transferred) of the power transfer.” EX1001, 51:43–48.
`
`Thus, the ’635 patent provides a system configured “to
`attenuate the far-field radiation without substantially attenuating
`the near-field resonant energy transfer.” EX1001, 54:15–17.
`
`Id. Further, Patent Owner contends that “[a]ll embodiments in the ’635
`
`patent are consistent with this goal” of attenuating far-field radiation without
`
`substantially attenuating near-field resonant energy transfer. Id. (citing Ex.
`
`1001, 2:3–14, 5:47–53, 51:49–55:14).
`
`Petitioner disagrees with this construction, asserting that the “claims
`
`do not mention far-field radiation.” Reply 2. Rather, Petitioner contends,
`
`“the claim requires only that the partially cancelled portion of the first
`
`magnetic field is ‘outside a spatial region through which power is transferred
`
`from the first source magnetic resonator to the device magnetic resonator.’”
`
`Id. In Petitioner’s view, Patent Owner’s specification passages “are a far cry
`
`from the clear and unmistakable disavowal required to narrow the claims to
`
`exclude near-field cancellation and require far-field cancellation.” Id. at 3.
`
`This is principally because, Petitioner argues, the specification expressly
`
`discloses that “[t]he fields that need to be minimized or reduced can be
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`either the far-field, or the near-field.” Id. (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, 51:29–37;
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28, 114).
`
`We agree with Petitioner. The plain language of claim 1 is expansive,
`
`requiring only that the partially cancelled first magnetic field is “outside a
`
`spatial region through which power is transferred from the first source
`
`magnetic resonator to the device magnetic resonator.” The claim does not
`
`refer to a specific type of radiation, let alone far field radiation. The claim
`
`drafter deliberately chose the broader term “first magnetic field” rather than
`
`specifying “far field radiation.” We find nothing in the claim that points to a
`
`more restrictive interpretation of “first magnetic field.”
`
`The specification does not limit the partially canceled first magnetic
`
`field to far field radiation either, as it expressly contemplates that “the fields
`
`that need to be minimized or reduced can be either the far-field, or the near
`
`field (if the wavelength is much larger than the distance between the wireless
`
`power transfer system to the point of interest).” Ex. 1001, 51:33–37
`
`(emphasis added). The specification could not be any plainer than this—
`
`referring explicitly to reducing the far field “or the near field.” Id.5
`
`
`5 Dr. Arnold helps explain the difference between near and far fields as
`follows:
`
`The term “near field” is a technical term that refers to the
`electromagnetic near field of an antenna, as opposed to the
`radiative “far field”. The near field for an electromagnetically
`short antenna is defined as a region within one electromagnetic
`wavelength of the antenna.
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 114. In the above specification passage, the near field is
`minimized or reduced “if the wavelength is much larger than the distance
`between the wireless power transfer system to the point of interest.” Ex.
`1001, 51:33–37. In other words, if the distance between the wireless power
`transfer system to the point of interest is within one electromagnetic
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`
`We also disagree with Patent Owner’s reliance on the specification’s
`
`disclosure of attenuating the far-field radiation “without substantially
`
`attenuating the near-field resonant energy transfer.” PO Resp. 6 (quoting
`
`Ex. 1001, 54:15–17). This quotation in fuller context reads,
`
`In embodiments, the conductors are distal from the near-field
`region of the wireless energy transfer system. This allows the
`conductors to attenuate the far-field radiation without
`substantially attenuating the near-field resonant energy transfer.
`
`Ex. 1001, 54:13–17 (emphasis added). This passage refers to
`
`“embodiments” where specific conductors are distal from the near-field
`
`region and therefore primarily attenuate the far field. There is no indication
`
`that this passage expressly disavows attenuating near-field radiation. To the
`
`contrary, as noted above, the specification contemplates minimizing near
`
`field radiation in other embodiments. E.g., id. at 51:33–35. And our
`
`reviewing court “has repeatedly cautioned against limiting the claimed
`
`invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the
`
`specification.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, it would be improper for us to limit the claim to
`
`partially canceling far-field radiation when the specification also explicitly
`
`encompasses minimizing or reducing near-field radiation. Ex. 1001, 51:33–
`
`37.
`
`Consequently, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction, and
`
`we determine that the claimed “the first magnetic field outside a spatial
`
`region through which power is transferred from the first source magnetic
`
`resonator to the device magnetic resonator” encompasses near-field
`
`
`wavelength of the antenna, the near field is minimized or reduced. See id.;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 114.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`radiation, far-field radiation, or both. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 114. We include
`
`“both” fields in this construction because Dr. Arnold persuasively testifies
`
`that “[a] reduction in the strength of the electromagnetic near field generally
`
`corresponds with a reduction in the strength of the electromagnetic far
`
`field.” Id.
`
`b. Remaining terms
`
`No other terms require construction at this stage. See Nidec Motor
`
`Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only
`
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) (internal quotation
`
`omitted).
`
`D. Asserted Anticipation by Kanno
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–8 are anticipated by Kanno. Pet.
`
`33–52.
`
`1. Overview of Kanno
`
`Kanno describes a system for magnetic resonant coupling wireless
`
`power transmission. Ex. 1005, 1:13–14. This system reduces leakage of
`
`unwanted electromagnetic components into the surrounding space. Id. at
`
`5:9–13. Figure 1 below depicts an example wireless power transmission
`
`unit:
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 6:50–51. The wireless power transmission unit of Figure 1 includes
`
`first and second wireless power transmitting sections 10a and 10b. Id. at
`
`6:52–53. Each of these wireless power transmitting sections 10a and 10b
`
`includes an oscillator 103, a power transmitting antenna 107, and a power
`
`receiving antenna 109. Id. at 6:55–63. A control section 192 adjusts the
`
`difference in phase between the respective resonant magnetic fields 195a,
`
`195b of the first and second wireless power transmitting sections 10a, 10b.
`
`Id. at 6:67–7:3. This phase difference is set to fall within the range of 90 to
`
`180 degrees. Id. at 7:5–8. When the phase difference is within this range,
`
`leakage of electromagnetic waves into the surrounding space can be reduced.
`
`Id. at 20:62–67.
`
`2. Independent Claim 1
`
`Petitioner contends that Kanno discloses the preamble and all the
`
`limitations of claim 1. Pet. 34–48. Patent Owner disputes only that Kanno
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`discloses the last limitation, 1[f]. PO Resp. 8–9. Patent Owner also argues
`
`that the Petition improperly combines multiple, distinct teachings within
`
`Kanno. Id. at 10–17.
`
`a. Preamble
`
`The preamble of claim 1 recites, “A system for wireless power
`
`transfer.” Petitioner argues that Kanno’s Figure 1 and 7 disclose the
`
`preamble by describing a “fundamental arrangement for a wireless power
`
`transmission unit.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58–59). Figure 1 is
`
`reproduced above in our overview of Kanno; we reproduce Figure 7 below
`
`in the next section. Figure 1 “illustrates a fundamental arrangement for a
`
`wireless power transmission unit,” including “first and second wireless
`
`power transmitting sections 10a and 10b.” Ex. 1005, 5:34–35, 6:52–53. We
`
`agree that Kanno discloses the preamble, whether or not it is limiting.
`
`b. [a] first source magnetic resonator
`
`Claim 1 next recites “a first source magnetic resonator comprising a
`
`conductive first coil having one or more loops coupled to at least one
`
`capacitor.” For this limitation, Petitioner again relies on Figure 7,
`
`reproduced below with Petitioner’s annotations:
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`
`
`
`Pet. 25. Figure 7 shows a “fundamental arrangement for a power generator”
`
`that, according to Petitioner, “uses the wireless power transmission unit of
`
`Figure 1 with power generating sections 101.” Id. at 24. Petitioner argues
`
`that first power transmitting antenna 107 (shown in blue) is the claimed first
`
`source magnetic resonator. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1005, 9:49–53; Ex. 1003
`
`¶ 64). We agree that Kanno discloses this limitation.
`
`c. [b] second source magnetic resonator
`
`Claim 1 also recites “a second source magnetic resonator comprising a
`
`conductive second coil having one or more loops, the second source
`
`magnetic resonator positioned at a non-zero distance from the first source
`
`magnetic resonator.” Petitioner again relies on Figure 7, reproduced with
`
`different annotations from Petitioner below:
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`
`Pet. 29. According to Petitioner, second transmitting antenna 107 (shown in
`
`green) teaches the claimed second source magnetic resonator. Id. (citing Ex.
`
`1005, 9:49–53; Ex. 1003 ¶ 71). We agree that Kanno discloses this
`
`
`
`limitation.
`
`d. [c] device magnetic resonator
`
`Claim 1 further recites “a device magnetic resonator positioned closer
`
`to the first source magnetic resonator than to the second source magnetic
`
`resonator.” For this limitation, Petitioner points again to Figure 7 and also to
`
`Figure 9, both reproduced below with Petitioner’s annotations:
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pet. 33–36. The light blue device in Figures 7 and 9 is the device magnetic
`
`resonator, Petitioner argues. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–80). Petitioner also
`
`relies on Kanno’s “real-world implementation of the power generator
`
`(Example 1)” to show that Kanno’s device magnetic resonator is positioned
`
`closer to the first source magnetic resonator than to the second source
`
`magnetic resonator. Id. at 35–36 (discussing specific dimensions from
`
`Example 1; citing Ex. 1005, 26:15–21, 27:2–4, 14–16, 64–67; Ex. 1003
`
`¶¶ 83–89).
`
`We agree that Kanno discloses this limitation.
`
`e. [d] first dipole moment
`
`Continuing, claim 1 recites “a first current flowing in the first source
`
`magnetic resonator generates a first magnetic field that couples to the device
`
`magnetic resonator to transfer operating power to the device magnetic
`
`resonator, and the magnetic field has a first dipole moment.” Petitioner
`
`produces yet another annotated view of Figure 7 for this limitation:
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`
`
`
`Pet. 37. Petitioner argues that current supplied through transmitting antenna
`
`107 generates a first magnetic field (shown in purple), which transfers RF
`
`energy to power receiving antenna 109. Id. at 38–39 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:55–
`
`63). Relying on the testimony of Dr. Arnold, Petitioner contends that the
`
`first magnetic field (purple) has a first dipole moment. Id. at 39 (citing Ex.
`
`1003 ¶ 96). This is true, Petitioner asserts, because “current flowing in a
`
`loop, such as the current flowing through inductor 107a of power
`
`transmitting antenna 107, generates a magnetic field with a dipole moment.”
`
`Id. at 39–40.
`
`We agree that Kanno discloses this limitation.
`
`f. [e] second dipole moment
`
`Additionally, claim 1 recites “a second current flowing in the second
`
`source magnetic resonator generates a second magnetic field having a
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`second dipole moment, wherein a direction of the first dipole moment is
`
`substantially opposite to a direction of the second dipole moment.”
`
`Petitioner argues that the purple-annotated arrows in Figure 7, below,
`
`represent a second dipole moment:
`
`Pet. 41–46. In the above Figure 7, current flowing through power
`
`transmitting antenna 107 generates a second magnetic field (purple), which
`
`Petitioner equates with a dipole moment for similar reasons as the preceding
`
`limitation. Id. at 42–43 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–106). We agree that
`
`
`
`Kanno discloses this limitation.
`
`g. [f] magnetic field cancellation
`
`Finally, claim 1 recites “wherein the first and second source magnetic
`
`resonators are positioned so that the second magnetic field at least partially
`
`cancels the first magnetic field outside a spatial region through which power
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`is transferred from the first source magnetic resonator to the device magnetic
`
`resonator.”
`
`Petitioner first points to Kanno’s Figure 1 disclosure that the two
`
`power transmitting antennas 107 have a 180-degree phase difference
`
`between oscillating currents such that their resonant magnetic fields 195a,
`
`195b point in substantially opposite directions. Pet. 45–47 (citing, e.g., Ex.
`
`1005, 7:25–28). As a result, Petitioner contends, the second magnetic field
`
`195b at least partially cancels the first magnetic field 195a outside a certain
`
`spatial region. Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:8–13, 20:62–21:4, 28:36–41; Ex.
`
`1003 ¶¶ 110–111, 115).
`
`Petitioner supports this statement with multiple teachings in Kanno.
`
`Id. First, Petitioner points to Kanno’s summary of the invention, which
`
`states, “according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention,
`
`leakage of unwanted electromagnetic components into the surrounding space
`
`. . . can be reduced.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 5:8–13). Next, Petitioner points
`
`to Kanno’s Figure 16 description, which states, “if θres is equal to 180
`
`degrees, then the two resonant magnetic fields will cancel each other, and
`
`therefore, leakage of electromagnetic waves into the surrounding space can
`
`be substantially eliminated.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 20:62–21:4). Lastly,
`
`Petitioner points to Kanno’s description in Example 1 of “the arrangement of
`
`the present invention in which θres was within the range of 90 to 180
`
`degrees . . . minimized leakage of electromagnetic waves into the
`
`surrounding space effectively.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 28:36–41; Ex. 1003
`
`¶¶ 110–111, 115).
`
`Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner applies an overbroad
`
`interpretation of claim 1 in order to map Kanno’s ‘near field strength’ to
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`claim 1.” PO Resp. 9. As explained above in our claim construction
`
`section, Patent Owner asserts that claim 1 requires at least partially
`
`canceling “far-field radiation,” not “near field strength.” Id. And Patent
`
`Owner contends that “Petitioner does not assert that Kanno’s ‘near field
`
`strength’ discloses or renders obvious ‘far-field radiation.’” Id. In Patent
`
`Owner’s view, “Kanno’s disclosure of reducing the near field strength does
`
`not disclose or render obvious at least partially canceling far-field radiation,
`
`as required by claim 1.” Id.
`
`In the Reply, Petitioner notes that if we reject Patent Owner’s
`
`construction, no further analysis is needed because “it is undisputed that
`
`Kanno teaches near-field cancellation.” Reply 5. Petitioner also argues that
`
`Kanno anticipates the claims because it also teaches far-field cancellation.
`
`Id. For example, Petitioner notes that as the Petition explained, Kanno’s
`
`resonators have the same configuration as the ’635 patent’s resonators and
`
`thus disclose the same far-field cancellation as the ’635 patent. Id. at 7
`
`(citing, e.g., Pet. 18–23, 35–36, 47–48; Ex. 1001, 53:11–14 (“the dipole
`
`component will be canceled far from the systems”); PO Resp. 6 (equating
`
`“far from the system” with “far-field”). Petitioner further relies on Dr.
`
`Arnold’s testimony that “[a] reduction in the strength of the electromagnetic
`
`near field generally corresponds with a reduction in the strength of the
`
`electromagnetic far field.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 114). Thus, Petitioner
`
`contends, Kanno “discloses the same far-field cancellation as the ’635
`
`patent.” Id.
`
`We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner’s arguments rely on a claim
`
`construction that we have not adopted. And Kanno discloses at least near-
`
`field cancellation by disclosing, for example, that angles “within the range of
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`90 to 180 degrees . . . minimized leakage of electromagnetic waves into the
`
`surrounding space effectively.” Ex. 1005, 28:36–41; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56 (citing,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1005, 28:18–42), 107 (similar), 111 (similar). Patent Owner does
`
`not dispute that Kanno teaches near-field cancellation. See, e.g., PO Resp. 9
`
`(“reducing ‘near field strength’ as described in Kanno”). Thus, under the
`
`correct construction of this limitation as encompassing near-field radiation,
`
`far-field radiation, or both, we agree that Kanno teaches it.
`
`Not only that, but Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s Reply
`
`argument that Kanno also discloses the same far-field cancellation as the
`
`’635 patent, as Patent Owner neither filed a sur-reply nor addressed
`
`Petitioner’s Reply argument at the oral hearing. See Tr. 14:20–21 (resting
`
`on the briefs). And we agree with Petitioner’s argument, as supported by the
`
`unrebutted testimony of Dr. Arnold, that even under Patent Owner’s
`
`incorrect construction, Kanno teaches this limitation. Reply 6–7 (citing,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114–15). Dr. Arnold asserts that “[a] reduction in the
`
`strength of the electromagnetic near field generally corresponds with a
`
`reduction in the strength of the electromagnetic far field.” See Ex. 1003
`
`¶ 114. Dr. Arnold explains in detail how these near and far fields relate to
`
`one another as follows:
`
`The term “near field” is a technical term that refers to the
`electromagnetic near field of an antenna, as opposed to the
`radiative “far field”. The near field for an electromagnetically
`short antenna is defined as a region within one electromagnetic
`wavelength of the antenna. The electrical frequency used in the
`real-world implementation of the power generator is 3 MHz.
`Id. 27:44-48. A frequency of 3 MHz corresponds to an
`electromagnetic wavelength of 100 meters. Here, the
`measurement distance of 5 meters is well within the near field
`range of 100 meters, and constitutes a near field measurement.
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`
`A reduction in the strength of the electromagnetic near field
`generally corresponds with a reduction in the strength of the
`electromagnetic far field
`
`Id. ¶ 114. In other words, if a field closer to an antenna is reduced, then the
`
`field farther from the antenna will be reduced too. This fact is
`
`unremarkable, as Dr. Arnold explains, “[t]he principles behind magnetic
`
`resonators to wirelessly transfer power have been known for over a century.”
`
`Id. ¶ 24.
`
`Thus, we find that both under our claim construction and under Patent
`
`Owner’s incorrect construction, Kanno discloses this limitation.
`
`h. Multiple, Distinct Teachings Argument
`
`Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner fails to meet its burden
`
`to show anticipation “because it combined multiple, distinct teachings within
`
`the reference.” PO Resp. 10. Patent Owner characterizes the Petition’s
`
`arguments for limitations 1[e] and 1[f] as depending on Kanno’s statement
`
`that “the two resonant magnetic fields will cancel each other,” which Kanno
`
`states in its description of Figure 16. Id. at 13 (citing Pet. 20, 46–47; Ex.
`
`1005, 20:62–21:4). But in Patent Owner’s view, Kanno explicitly treats
`
`Figure 16 as a different embodiment than the fundamental arrangement of
`
`Figures 1, 7, and 9 and the embodiment of Example 1. Id.
`
`Although Patent Owner concedes that Figure 16 shares reference
`
`numerals with prior figures, Patent Owner contends that this “is of no
`
`import” because “each of the Embodiments 2–5 also include these common
`
`reference numerals.” Id. At most, Patent Owner argues, “this overlap of
`
`reference numerals was made for convenience of reference,” and “not to
`
`indicate that these later embodiments should be combined with the
`
`fundamental arrangement.” Id.
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01127
`Patent 9,306,635 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner points to Kanno’s description of Figure 16 under the
`
`heading “Embodiment 1,” which is “separate and apart from the
`
`fundamental arrangement shown in Figures 1, 7, and 9.” Id. at 14. Kanno,
`
`Patent Owner argues, does not describe combining the Figure 16
`
`embodiment with the arrangement of Figures 1, 7, and 9 or Example 1. Id.
`
`at 15. This “Embodiment 1” is further broken down into three
`
`embodiments, Patent Owner argues. Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1005, 12:45–47