Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 8,304,935
`Issued: Nov. 6, 2012
`Application No.: 12/647,763
`Filing Date: Dec. 28, 2009
`
`For: Wireless Energy Transfer Using Field Shaping to Reduce Loss
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,304,935
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ..................................... 2
`II.
`III. Background ...................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`The ’935 Patent (Ex. 1001) ................................................................... 2
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 7
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 8
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 9
`IV. Ground 1: Claims 1, 5-8, 15, and 19-22 are anticipated by O’Brien .............. 9
`A. O’Brien Overview (Ex. 1007) ............................................................. 10
`B.
`Independent claims 1 and 15 ............................................................... 17
`1.
`Preambles .................................................................................. 17
`2.
`[a] source resonator ................................................................... 17
`3.
`[b] second resonator .................................................................. 20
`4.
`[c] near-field wireless energy transfer ...................................... 22
`5.
`[d] field is shaped by conducting and magnetic material ......... 24
`Dependent claims 5-8 and 19-22 are anticipated by O’Brien ............. 35
`1.
`Claims 5-7 and claims 19-21 – multiple resonators ................. 35
`2.
`Claims 8, 22 – field shaped to avoid loss-inducing object ....... 38
`V. Ground 2: Claims 1-23 would have been obvious over O’Brien in
`view of Haaster .............................................................................................. 41
`A. Haaster (Ex. 1008) Overview .............................................................. 42
`B. Motivation to combine O’Brien and Haaster ...................................... 44
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`C.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 15 ............................................................... 51
`1.
`Preamble, Elements and steps [a], [b] and [c] .......................... 51
`2.
`[d] field is shaped by conducting and magnetic material ......... 51
`D. Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-22 ....................................................... 53
`1.
`Claim 2-4 and 16-18 – quality factors > 100 ............................ 54
`2.
`Claims 5-7, 19-21 – multiple resonators ................................... 59
`3.
`Claims 8, 22 – field shaped to avoid loss-inducing object ....... 59
`4.
`Claim 9 – loss-inducing object completely covered by
`conducting and magnetic material ............................................ 61
`Claim 10 – loss-inducing object partially covered ................... 63
`Claim 11 – loss-inducing object nearer to source or
`second resonator ........................................................................ 64
`Claim 12 – conducting material as first layer and
`magnetic material as second layer ............................................ 66
`Claim 13 – partial covering by conducting and magnetic
`material ...................................................................................... 68
`Claim 14 – loss-inducing object is a mobile electronic
`device ........................................................................................ 69
`Independent claim 23 .......................................................................... 71
`1.
`Preamble .................................................................................... 71
`2.
`[a] resonator coupled to power and control circuitry ................ 71
`3.
`[b] near-field wireless energy transfer ...................................... 73
`4.
`[c] field is shaped by magnetic and conducting materials
`around power and control circuitry ........................................... 73
`VI. Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 75
`VII. The Board Should Reach the Merits of This Petition ................................... 75
`
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`E.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`
`VIII. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................... 76
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest .......................................................................... 76
`B.
`Related Matters .................................................................................... 76
`C.
`Grounds for Standing .......................................................................... 76
`D.
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ........................... 76
`E.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review ................................................................ 78
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 79
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ......................................... 75
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 11
`Cornell Univ. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. 01-CV-1974, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39343
`(N.D.N.Y. May 14, 2008) ............................................................................. 11, 12
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 11
`In re Lister,
`583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 10
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 9
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1695 (2018) ................ 9
`United Patents Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2018-00599, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 10, 2018) ......................................... 11
`WiTricity Corp. v. Momentum Dynamics Corp.,
`C.A. No. 20-1671-MSG ...................................................................................... 76
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................... 42
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................. 10, 42
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 42
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................... 75
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .............................................................................................. 76
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................................................................................. 76
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................. 76
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................ 77
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................. 77
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`Ex.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,304,935 (“’935 patent”)
`
`File History for ’935 patent (“’935 patent FH”)
`
`Declaration of Mark Allen (“Allen Decl.”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Mark Allen
`
`Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`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”), including certified translation of the German
`portions of pages 1-3
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2004/0001299, van Haaster, et al., “EMI Shield
`Including a Lossy Medium” (“Haaster”)
`
`International Publication No. WO 2005/024865, P. Beart, et al.,
`“Inductive Power Transfer Units Having Flux Shields” (“Beart”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,501,364, Hui, et al., “Planar Printed-Circuit-
`Board Transformers with Effective Electromagnetic Interference
`(EMI) Shielding” (“Hui-364”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0189910, S.R.
`Hui, “Planar Inductive Battery Charger” (“Hui-910”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,358,447, J.F. Gabower, “Electromagnetic
`Interference Shields for Electronic Devices” (“Gabower”)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`Description
`
`Frederick Emmons Terman, et al., Electronic and Radio
`Engineering (4th ed. 1947) (“Terman”) (excerpted)
`
`Kathleen O’Brien, et al., Magnetic Field Generation in an
`Inductively Coupled Radio-Frequency Power Transmission
`System, IEEE 2006 37th Annual Power Electronics Specialists
`Conference (July 2006)
`
`G. Scheible, et al., Novel Wireless Power Supply System for
`Wireless Communication Devices in Industrial Automation
`Systems, IEEE 2002 28th Annual Conference of the Industrial
`Electronics Society (Nov. 2002) (“Scheible”)
`
`Estill I. Green, The Story of Q, 43 Am. Scientist 584 (Oct. 1955)
`(“Story of Q”)
`
`David H. Staelin, et al., Electromagnetic Waves 46 (1998)
`(“Staelin”) (excerpted)
`
`Herbert L. Krauss, et al., Solid State Radio Engineering (1980)
`(“Krauss”) (excerpted)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,169,185, A. Partovi & M. Sears, “System and
`Method for Inductive Charging of Portable Devices” (“Partovi”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,561,114, M. Maezawa, et al., “Electromagnetic
`Interference Suppressor, Antenna Device and Electronic
`Information Transmitting Apparatus” (“Maezawa”)
`
`Kathleen O’Brien, et al., Design of Large Air-Gap Transformers
`for Wireless Power Supplies, IEEE 2003 34th Annual
`Conference on Power Electronics Specialists (June 2003)
`
`Kathleen O’Brien, et al., Analysis of Wireless Power Supplies for
`Industrial Automation Systems, 29th Annual Conference of the
`IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (2003)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
` Q
`
`Ex.
`
`Description
`
`
`
` Description
`
`
`
`1023
`1023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,639,989, Leo M. Higgins, III, “Shielded
`US. Patent No. 5,639,989, Leo M. Higgins, III, “Shielded
`Electronic Component Assembly and Method for Making the
`Electronic Component Assembly and Method for Making the
`Same” (“Higgins”)
`Same” (“Higgins”)
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Viii
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`Introduction
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation (“Momentum Dynamics” or “Petitioner”)
`
`requests inter partes review of claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 8,304,935, A. Karalis,
`
`et al., titled “Wireless Energy Transfer Using Field Shaping to Reduce Loss” (“’935
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001). According to USPTO records, the ’935 patent is assigned to
`
`WiTricity Corporation.
`
`The ’935 patent is directed to near-field wireless energy transfer between a
`
`“source resonator” and a “second” (or “device”) resonator, including “shaping” the
`
`resonators’ magnetic field using shielding comprising conductive and magnetic
`
`materials. ’935 patent 2:18-25, 8:5-9; Allen Decl. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1003).
`
`But this was nothing new. Near-field inductive energy transfer was well
`
`known, and shielding/shaping the magnetic field was also well understood. For
`
`example, a doctoral thesis (“O’Brien”) summarized and analyzed the well-known
`
`fundamentals—including such near-field wireless energy
`
`transfer between
`
`resonators and shielding/shaping effects—and taught several improvements.
`
`O’Brien 19-20 (Ex. 1007). O’Brien by itself renders about half of the claims
`
`unpatentable. The rest are unpatentable further in view of the EMI shielding
`
`teachings from Haaster, a prior-art patent. Haaster Abstract (Ex. 1008).
`
`Accordingly, the Board should institute review of the ’935 patent and find all
`
`challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`II.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`• Claims 1, 5-8, 15, and 19-22 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`
`O’Brien (Ex. 1007).
`
`• Claims 1-23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over O’Brien (Ex.
`
`1007) in view of Haaster (Ex. 1008).
`
`III. Background
`A. The ’935 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’935 patent generally relates to “wireless energy transfer, also referred to
`
`as wireless power transmission.” ’935 patent Abstract, 1:33-34, 2:17-40; Allen Decl.
`
`¶ 36. More particularly, the ’935 patent is directed to systems for near-field wireless
`
`energy transfer between a “source resonator” and a “second” (or “device”) resonator,
`
`and techniques for “shaping” the resonators magnetic field to avoid “loss-inducing
`
`objects” using conductive and magnetic materials. ’935 patent Abstract, 2:18-25,
`
`8:4-9; Allen Decl. ¶ 36.
`
`A “resonator” is “a system that can store energy in at least two different forms,
`
`and where the stored energy is oscillating between the two forms,” such as a
`
`capacitor and an inductor.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`
`
`’935 patent Fig. 6(a), 11:54-56, 19:4-17; Allen Decl. ¶¶ 37-38.
`
`Energy oscillates between the capacitor and inductor as the “capacitor
`
`discharges transferring energy into magnetic field energy stored in the inductor
`
`which in turn transfers energy back into electric field energy stored in the capacitor
`
`104.” ’935 patent 19:11-16. A resonator is defined in part by its “resonant
`
`frequency,” which is the frequency at which energy would “continually be
`
`exchanged between the electric field in the capacitor 104 and the magnetic field in
`
`the inductor 108” in the absence of any losses in the system. Id. at 20:37-51; Allen
`
`Decl. ¶ 38. There will be losses, however, and the “Quality Factor” of a resonator,
`
`which characterizes its energy decay, is inversely proportional to those losses. Id. at
`
`21:1-37; Allen Decl. ¶ 39.
`
`When a second resonator is located near a first source resonator and the
`
`resonators have “substantially the same resonant frequency,” the two resonators will
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`“interact and exchange energy.” ’935 patent 13:34-64. For example, the oscillating
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`magnetic field of the “source” resonator will induce a current in the inductor of the
`
`second resonator, transferring energy over a distance D, as illustrated in Figure 1
`
`below.
`
`
`
`
`
`’935 patent Fig. 1, 7:16-18, 14:39-44; Allen Decl. ¶ 40.
`
`The ’935 patent explains that other objects may absorb or attenuate some of
`
`the source magnetic field. ’935 patent 12:33-49. For example, when “materials and
`
`objects such as some electronic circuits and some lower-conductivity metals” are
`
`placed near the source or device resonator, the “electromagnetic fields can penetrate
`
`[the electronic circuits and some lower-conductivity metals] and induce currents in
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`it, which then dissipate energy through resistive losses.” Id. at 33:5-16, 34:65-35:6.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`The ’935 patent refers to materials and objects as “lossy” if they dissipate “non-
`
`trivial amounts” of energy when placed in a magnetic field. Id. at 34:65-35:6; Allen
`
`Decl. ¶ 41.
`
`The ’935 patent discusses “shaping” a resonator’s magnetic field, to avoid or
`
`protect lossy objects that may be sensitive to magnetic flux. Id. at 8:4-9, 35:7-13;
`
`Allen Decl. ¶¶ 41-42. In particular, the ’935 patent purports to teach techniques to
`
`“block, shield, or guide magnetic fields” using (1) high-conductivity materials, (2)
`
`magnetic materials, and (3) the combination of high-conductivity materials and
`
`magnetic materials. ’935 patent 29:42-53.
`
`For example, “high-conductivity” materials may “deflect or reshape the
`
`fields.” ’935 patent 35:7-13. The ’935 patent states that “electromagnetic fields at
`
`the surface of a good conductor” such as copper will not penetrate through the
`
`conductive material, instead inducing eddy currents near the surface of the
`
`conductor. Id. at 33:5-19, 34:57-61, 40:10-14. Those induced eddy currents create
`
`an opposing magnetic flux perpendicular to the surface of the conductor,
`
`“deflect[ing]” or canceling the source field. Id. at 35:9-21; Allen Decl. ¶ 43. High-
`
`conductivity materials can therefore be used to shape the magnetic field generated
`
`by a source resonator to, for example, “shield” sensitive components (see ’935 patent
`
`8:4-9) or to reduce (but not completely eliminate) extraneous power losses in lower-
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`conductivity lossy objects. Id. at 36:36-39; Allen Decl. ¶ 43. Such shielding was not
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`new. See, e.g., Terman 35 (discussing copper and aluminum shielding), Fig. 2-19(d)
`
`(“Electrostatic flux with conducting shield”) (Ex. 1013); Beart 2:29-3:10 (describing
`
`“flux shields” made of “conductive materials” “used to shield one part of a system
`
`from a magnetic field and consequently concentrate the field in another part”) (Ex.
`
`1009); Allen Decl. ¶ 44.
`
`Materials with a high magnetic permeability (sometimes called “magnetic
`
`materials”) may also shape a source field. ’935 patent 39:7-15, 39:39-43
`
`(“magnetically permeable material, also referred to as magnetic material, (any
`
`material or meta-material having a non-trivial magnetic permeability)”). Magnetic
`
`materials provide a “lower reluctance path (compared to free space) for the deflected
`
`magnetic field to follow.” Id. 39:43-50, 40:9-14; Allen Decl. ¶ 45. A magnetic field
`
`will flow into and through such magnetic materials, shaping the field to avoid lossy
`
`materials so that “little or no power is dissipated in these materials and objects.” ’935
`
`patent 39:28-32; Allen Decl. ¶ 45. The ’935 patent admits that such “[m]agnetic field
`
`shielding” was already known in the art. ’935 patent 39:16-17. For example, a
`
`“spherical shell of magnetically permeable material was shown to shield its interior
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`from external magnetic fields.” Id. at 39:16-28 (citing textbook); see also Allen
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 45-46; Terman 40; Hui-364 3:27-4:17 (Ex. 1010).
`
`A combination of a magnetically permeable material and a high-conductivity
`
`material will also shape the magnetic field. Id. 39:35-51. For example, “[a] layer of
`
`magnetically permeable material” could be “placed on or around the high-
`
`conductivity surfaces.” Id. at 39:39-43. The layer of magnetic material can “partially
`
`shield the electric conductor underneath it from the incident magnetic flux” and
`
`“may reduce the losses due to induced currents in the high-conductivity surface.” Id.
`
`at 39:43-51; see also id. at 39:63-40:4, 42:28-34; Allen Decl. ¶¶ 47-48. This, too,
`
`was known. See, e.g., Terman 37, Fig. 2-19(f) (“Conducting shield with ferrite
`
`liner”), 39-40; Hui-364 3:28-34, 5:12-47; Hui-910 (Ex. 1011) ¶¶ 4, 8, 11-12, 80-84
`
`(describing the use of an EMI shield comprising a “ferrite sheet” and a “copper
`
`sheet” to prevent magnetic flux from inducing “undesirable currents” in “metal parts
`
`inside [a] portable electronic surface”); Allen Decl. ¶ 48.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`During prosecution, the Examiner rejected all pending claims of the ’935
`
`patent as obvious over “Kirby” and “Kurs.” ’935 patent FH 1446-48 (Ex. 1002). In
`
`response, Applicant amended the final limitation of independent claims 1 and 8
`
`(issued claims 1 and 15, respectively), to recite that the “field of at least one of the
`
`source resonator and the second resonator is shaped using a conducting material
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`[claim 8: conducting surface] and a magnetic material,” and removing the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`requirement that the field is shaped “to avoid loss-inducing object” from those
`
`claims. Id. at 1534-35 (emphasis in original). Applicant also added new dependent
`
`claims directed to shaping the field “to avoid a loss-inducing object.” Id. at 1535-36;
`
`Allen Decl. ¶ 51.
`
`Applicant also argued that neither Kurs nor Kirby qualified as prior art. ’935
`
`patent FH 1538. The Examiner issued a notice of allowance, stating only that the
`
`Applicant’s remarks were persuasive. Id. at 1553-58. After allowance, the Applicant
`
`filed a request for continued examination, identifying a number of references in an
`
`IDS. Id. at 1589-90. The Examiner issued a second notice of allowance, stating that
`
`“the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest, inter alia, wherein the field of
`
`at least one of the source resonator and the second resonator is shaped using a
`
`conducting material and a magnetic material.” Id. at 2260-66; Allen Decl. ¶¶ 52-53.
`
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the relevant time (around
`
`2008) 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 relating to electrical engineering (or
`
`equivalent), with at least one year of industry experience. Allen Decl. ¶¶ 31-34.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`This Petition does not turn on this precise definition, and the claims would be
`
`unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable POSA. Id. ¶ 35.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`The prior art relied on in this Petition discloses the subject matter of the
`
`challenged claims under any reasonable construction, including their plain
`
`meaning.1 Petitioner submits that no terms need to be construed to find the asserted
`
`claims unpatentable under the grounds set forth herein. Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (only
`
`terms necessary to resolve the controversy need to be construed), cert. denied, 138
`
`S. Ct. 1695 (2018).
`
`IV. Ground 1: Claims 1, 5-8, 15, and 19-22 are anticipated by O’Brien
`O’Brien anticipates these claims, teaching each and every claim element
`
`arranged as in the claim. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359,
`
`1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`In particular, O’Brien teaches coupling at least one source resonator to one or
`
`more other resonators to transfer energy across an air gap of several meters (or more),
`
`
`1 Petitioner reserves the right to argue alternative constructions in other proceedings,
`
`and where such a defense is available, that the claims are indefinite.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`and shielding/shaping the resulting magnetic field using a magnetic material and a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`conductive material.
`
`A. O’Brien Overview (Ex. 1007)
`O’Brien is a doctoral thesis that was not considered during prosecution.
`
`O’Brien is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was publicly available more
`
`than one year prior to the ’935 patent’s filing date. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1315-
`
`16 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`In particular, “persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter
`
`or art exercising reasonable diligence” would have found O’Brien no later than
`
`March 2, 2007. Id. (emphasis and citation omitted). O’Brien was completed and
`
`approved by faculty members at the University of Dresden on March 11, 2006. Hall-
`
`Ellis Decl. (Ex. 1005) ¶ 38. The “Machine-Readable Cataloging” (MARC) record
`
`for O’Brien demonstrates that O’Brien was received, cataloged, and indexed by the
`
`Verbundzentrale Des Gemeinsamen Bibliotheksverbundes as of March 2, 2007. Id.
`
`¶ 40. As a result, a POSA could have electronically searched by subject-matter
`
`keyword or by title on the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) WorldCat
`
`database and found O’Brien no later than March 2, 2007. Id. ¶¶ 41-43; In re Lister,
`
`583 F.3d at 1315-16 (“we conclude that the [reference] was publicly accessible as
`
`of the date that it was included in . . . the databases that permitted keyword searching
`
`of titles”).
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`And to be sure, “a single catalogued thesis in one university library” is
`
`“sufficient[ly] acccesib[le] . . . to those interested in the art.” In re Hall, 781 F.2d
`
`897, 898-900 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also United Patents Inc. v. Sound View
`
`Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-00599, Paper 11 at 16-20 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 10, 2018)
`
`(instituting petition and finding reasonable likelihood that a thesis was publicly
`
`accessible based on MARC cataloging records and expert librarian testimonial
`
`evidence). And here, a POSA would have found O’Brien catalogued and shelved in
`
`at least the Verbundzentrale Des Gemeinsamen Bibliotheksverbundes no later than
`
`March 2, 2007. Hall-Ellis Decl. ¶ 40-41. O’Brien was also catalogued according to
`
`various keywords describing its subject matter, including “electric power
`
`transmission,” “electromagnetic field,” “radio technology,” “inductive coupling,”
`
`“power electronics,” and “transceiver.” Id. ¶ 41. Accordingly, an interested POSA
`
`could have found O’Brien by searching for those keywords. Id.
`
`Moreover, a reasonably diligent POSA would have also found O’Brien via
`
`the roadmap established by O’Brien’s other prior art publications, including
`
`“Magnetic Field Generation in an Inductively Coupled Radio-Frequency Power
`
`Transmission System,” published by IEEE in 2006 that expressly cites the O’Brien
`
`thesis. Ex. 1014 n.6 (citing O’Brien (Ex. 1007)). Thus, a reasonably diligent POSA
`
`interested in wireless power systems would have found O’Brien’s thesis.
`
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Cornell
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`Univ. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 01-CV-1974, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39343, at
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`*20-25 (N.D.N.Y. May 14, 2008).
`
`O’Brien taught “providing power to devices without the use of wires or
`
`regular maintenance” using a “non-conventional transformer with a large air-gap in
`
`the magnetic path.” O’Brien 19. In particular, O’Brien used one or more source side
`
`resonators and one or more device side resonators, permitting “fields [to] cover
`
`distances of up to several meters.” Id. at 19, 114 (“As the source and receiver sides
`
`of the system are tuned to a resonant frequency, and form a transformer with a large-
`
`air gap”); Allen Decl. ¶ 56; see also id. ¶ 57 (discussing chapter structure of
`
`O’Brien). An exemplary diagram of O’Brien’s wireless power transfer system is
`
`shown below, wherein the “source side”—i.e., the side that generates magnetic flux
`
`and transmits power—includes a tunable resonant circuit connected to a power
`
`source, and the “device side”—i.e., the side that receives power and delivers it to a
`
`load—similarly includes a resonant circuit.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`
`
`Allen Decl. ¶ 59 (annotating O’Brien Fig. 5-1); O’Brien 19-21, 153.
`
`Like the ’935 patent, O’Brien specifically analyzed “near field” energy
`
`transfer between resonators because the near field allows for “significantly more
`
`energy to be transferred between source and receiver” than far-field transfer.
`
`O’Brien 22-242 (analyzing “the power transfer characteristics between distributed
`
`sources and sinks (receivers) using magnetic coupling in the near field”); ’935
`
`patent Abstract (“source resonator and the second resonator are coupled to provide
`
`near-field wireless energy transfer”); Allen Decl. ¶ 58. At an exemplary operating
`
`
`2 All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`frequency of 120kHz, O’Brien taught that near-field wireless energy transfer could
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`“extend approximately 400 meters from the source coils[,]” but legal and safety
`
`standards would “generally restrict the maximum distance between source and
`
`receiver to several meters.” O’Brien 23-24.
`
`O’Brien also taught that the wireless power transfer system should be
`
`designed to address “[p]artial or complete shielding of the source field” that can
`
`“effectively prevent the receiving coils from receiving adequate power for
`
`operation.” Id. at 63. Shielding, as described by O’Brien, refers to the effect on a
`
`source field when “conductive or permeable materials are placed in or near to the
`
`source field[.]” Id. Like the ’935 patent, O’Brien describes (1) conductive materials,
`
`(2) magnetic materials, and (3) the combination of conductive and magnetic
`
`materials interacting with and “shaping” the source field. See generally id. 63-84;
`
`’935 patent 29:42-53; Allen Decl. ¶ 60.
`
`First, O’Brien, like the ’935 patent, taught that “highly conductive materials”
`
`cause “shielding of the source field” because “eddy currents induced by the source
`
`field flow in materials (conducting masses of any shape) with a high conductivity
`
`located within the operating volume.” O’Brien 65. These eddy currents induce an
`
`opposing magnetic field that “with vector components only in the direction normal
`
`to the surface in which the eddy currents are flowing.” Id. 68; ’935 patent 35:13-21
`
`(induced currents will “force the electric field to be nearly completely perpendicular
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`to, and the magnetic field to be nearly completely tangential to, the conductor
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`surface”); Allen Decl. ¶ 61. As a result, highly conductive material “considerably
`
`alter[s] both the magnitude and direction of the source field vector.” O’Brien 68; cf.
`
`’935 patent 35:7-18 (stating high-conductivity materials “deflect or reshape the
`
`fields”). And like the ’935 patent, O’Brien taught the amount of shaping that occurs
`
`due to the conducting material will depend on the “relative angle between source
`
`field and shield.” O’Brien 69-72; cf. ’935 patent 35:21-26; Allen Decl. ¶¶ 62-63.
`
`Second, O’Brien taught “magnetic material of high permeability” can shape a
`
`magnetic field. O’Brien 75. Specifically, magnetic materials provide a “low-
`
`reluctance path for the magnetic flux [that] effectively ‘guide[s]’ the flux around the
`
`shielded area,” as shown in Figure 4-21 below.
`
`Allen Decl. ¶¶ 64-66 (annotating O’Brien Fig. 4-21); O’Brien 75-76. This is
`
`substantially the same description provided by the ’935 patent for shaping a field
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`using magnetic materials. ’935 patent 39:43-51, 40:9-14 (“the presence of a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,304,935
`
`magnetic material may provide a lower reluctance path for the magnetic field.”).
`
`Third, O’Brien taught that conductive and magnetic materials are used
`
`together to shape a field. O’Brien explains that losses associated with a conducting
`
`object or material are reduced by “install[ing] a layer of permeable material over the
`
`surface of any conducting object or material.” O’Brien 82-83 (“Compensation of
`
`conductive shielding with permeable materials”); Allen Decl. ¶¶ 67-68. The ’935
`
`patent described the same thing. ’935 patent 39:39-43 (“A layer of magnetically
`
`permeable material” could be “placed on or around the high-conductivity surfaces”);
`
`Allen Decl. ¶¶ 67-68. O’Brien also explains “permeable and conductive