throbber
Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,843,215
`
`Apple Inc. v. Scramoge Technology, Ltd., Case IPR2022-00117
`
`Calmann J. Clements,
`Haynes Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`Ex.1037 / IPR2022-00117 / Page 1 of 33
`APPLE INC. v. SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY, LTD.
`
`

`

`The ’215 Patent
`
`Ex.1001, Figs. 5 and 10 (annotated); ’215 Petition at 9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`2
`
`

`

`’215 Patent, Claim 1
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 10; ’215 Petition at 9.
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 1
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`3
`
`

`

`Ground 1: Claims 1, 8-11, 13, 17, and 19-21 are
`obvious over Sawa and Park
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`4
`
`

`

`Sawa teaches a plurality of soft magnetic layers
`
`Sawa
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 3 (annotated); ’962 Petition at 38.
`
`’215 Petition at 32.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`5
`
`

`

`Sawa’s first magnetic thin plate is a soft magnetic layer
`
`’215 Petition, 31-32.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`6
`
`

`

`Sawa’s first magnetic thin plate is a soft magnetic layer
`
`Ex.1005, 8:59-9:11; Ex.1003, ¶60; ’215 Petition, 31-32.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`7
`
`

`

`Sawa’s first magnetic thin plate materials are soft magnetic materials
`
`Sawa
`
`Ex.1005, 8:59-9:11; Ex.1003, ¶60; ’215 Petition, 31-32.
`
`Patent Evidence
`
`Ex.1020, 1:17-20; ’215; Reply, 4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`8
`
`

`

`Sawa’s first magnetic thin plate materials are soft magnetic materials
`
`Sawa
`
`Ex.1005, 8:59-9:11; Ex.1003, ¶60; ’215 Petition, 31-32.
`Textbook Evidence
`
`Ex.1022, Figs 3.1 and 3.2; ’215; Reply, 4.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`9
`
`

`

`Sawa’s first magnetic thin plate materials are soft magnetic materials
`
`Sawa
`
`Ex.1005, 8:59-9:11; Ex.1003, ¶60; ’215 Petition, 31-32.
`
`Patent Owner’s Evidence
`
`Ex.2019, 36; Reply, 4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`

`Sawa’s first magnetic thin plate materials are soft magnetic materials
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent Owner Response, 43.
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner Reply, 15.
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s argues that Sawa’s magnetic plate is hard to saturate
`
`• Patent Owner repeatedly points to Sawa’s first magnetic thin plate as
`being “hard to saturate.”
`
`o Response, 22 (Sawa’s “first magnetic plate exhibits hard to saturate 
`magnetic characteristics”)
`
`o Response, 15 (“it is possible to make the first magnetic thin plate 2 hard to 
`be magnetic‐saturated”) 
`
`o Response, 17‐19 (“a first magnetic plate … should be hard to saturate”)
`‘215 Reply, 7-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`

`Sawa teaches “a plurality of soft magnetic layers” as claimed
`
`Summary
`
`• The petition establishes that Sawa teaches soft magnetic layers.
`
`• Sawa’s list of materials are well-known soft magnetic materials.
`
`• Patent Owner relies on the wrong characteristic to argue that Sawa’s
`first magnetic thin plate 2 is not “soft”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`’215 Patent, Claim 1
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 10; ’215 Petition at 9.
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 1.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`Sawa teaches the claimed first and second polymeric material layers
`
`Petition, 40.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`

`The specification of the ’215 patent contemplates a single piece
`
`Petition, 42.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`Sawa renders obvious precisely what is recited in the claims
`
`Petitioner Reply, 22.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`17
`
`

`

`Both independent claims, on their face, are apparatus claims
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 1.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 13.
`18
`
`18
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Product-by-Process construction is taught by Sawa
`
`Patent Owner Response, 2.
`
`Patent Owner Response, 29.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`19
`
`

`

`Sawa teaches the claimed first and second polymeric material layers
`
`Summary
`
`• Sawa teaches precisely what is claimed—magnetic layers
`encapsulated in polymer.
`
`• Patent Owner’s proposed construction fails to overcome Sawa’s
`teachings.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`20
`
`

`

`Ground 2: Claims 5, 12, 18, and 22 are
`obvious over Sawa, Park, and Inoue
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`21
`
`

`

`It was known to use adhesives to secure polymer to magnetic plates
`
`Sawa
`
`Inoue
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 10; ’215 Petition, 29.
`
`Ex.1007, Fig. 1; Petition, 55.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`22
`
`

`

`It was known to use adhesives to secure polymer to magnetic plates
`
`Sawa
`
`Inoue
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 3 (annotated); ’215 Petition, 60.
`
`Ex.1007, Fig. 3B (annotated); ’215 Petition, 56.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`23
`
`

`

`It was known to use adhesives to secure polymer to magnetic plates
`
`Sawa and Inoue
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 3 (annotated); ’215 Petition, 62.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`24
`
`

`

`It was known to use adhesives to secure polymer to magnetic plates
`
`Ex.1005, 5:16-21; ’215 Petition, 21.
`
`Adhesive 
`between
`plates of
`the same
`kind
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 3 (annotated); ’962 Petition at 38.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`25
`
`

`

`It was known to use adhesives to secure polymer to magnetic plates
`
`Petitioner Reply, 25.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`26
`
`

`

`The test for obviousness
`
`Patent Owner Response, 44.
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007); Response, 44.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`27
`
`

`

`The test for obviousness
`
`Petition, 57.
`
`Petition, 57-58.
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); ’215 Reply, 25.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`28
`
`

`

`Sawa and Inoue teach using adhesives to secure polymer to magnetic plates
`
`Summary
`
`• Sawa shows that it was known to secure polymer to magnetic layers
`
`•
`
`Inoue shows that it was known to use adhesive to secure polymer to
`magnetic layers
`
`• Because POSITAs were already using adhesive layers to secure
`polymers to magnetic sheets in wireless charging applications, as
`evidenced by Inoue, a POSITA would have had a sufficient reason to
`do the same in Sawa
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`29
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,843,215
`
`Apple Inc. v. Scramoge Technology, Ltd., Case IPR2022-00117
`
`Calmann J. Clements,
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`

`

`Additional Slides
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`31
`
`

`

`BH Curves
`
`Ex.2020, ¶58, Reply, 11.
`
`Ex.1018 (Reproducing Ex.1024, Fig. 7); Reply, 12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`32
`
`

`

`Sawa and Inoue together show that it was known to use adhesives to secure
`polymer to magnetic plates in the field of wireless charging devices
`
`Sawa and Inoue
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 3 (annotated); ’215 Petition, 64.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`33
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket