Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 32
`Entered: April 6, 2023
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Thursday, February 9, 2023
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KARL D. EASTHOM, and BRIAN J.
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 32
`Entered: April 6, 2023
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Thursday, February 9, 2023
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KARL D. EASTHOM, and BRIAN J.
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`
`
` A
`
` P P E A R A N C E S
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`CALMANN JAMES CLEMENTS, ESQUIRE
`SCOTT JARRATT, ESQUIRE
`HAYNES and BOONE, LLP
`6000 Headquarters Drive
`Suite 200
`Plano, Texas 75024
`(972) 739-6900
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOHN PETRSORIC, ESQUIRE
`BRETT COOPER, ESQUIRE
`BC LAW
`1803 S. Kanner Highway
`Stuart, Florida 34994
`(877) 838-0777
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, February
`9, 2023, commencing at 1:02 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE McNAMARA: -- but as I didn't hear it all,
`could you please state who you are again for just a
`moment.
` Petitioner?
` MR. JARRATT: Yeah, this is Scott Jarratt. Good
`afternoon, Your Honors. I'm lead counsel for
`Petitioner, Apple. And with me is Calmann Clements,
`also counsel for Petitioner, Apple, and he will be
`presenting today.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Mr. Clements will be
`presenting, did you say?
` MR. JARRATT: That's correct.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Great. Thank you so
`much.
` And for the Patent Owner?
` MR. COOPER: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My
`name is Brett Cooper, and I am lead counsel for
`Scramoge. My colleague, John Petrsoric, will be
`presenting today for the Patent Owner.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Thank you so much.
` All right. Just as this is a video hearing, I
`have a couple of preliminary remarks I'd like to make.
`First, as you know, our primary concern is your right to
`be heard. So if at any time during the proceeding you
`encounter any technical difficulties, and that has
`3
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`happened, or any other difficulties that you feel
`fundamentally undermine your ability to represent your
`client, let us know immediately, and contact the team
`member who provided you with the connection information.
` Second, when not speaking, please mute
`yourself. That's primarily to avoid echoing and other
`kinds of crosstalk.
` Third, please identify yourself each time you
`speak, and that will help the court reporter prepare an
`accurate transcript.
` We have the entire record, including the
`demonstratives. I don't know whether or not any -- any
`of you are planning to -- to show your demonstratives or
`display them yourselves. But we have the record,
`including the demonstratives, so when you are referring
`to any papers or exhibits, please do so clearly by slide
`number or page number, and then, give us a few seconds
`to try and identify and find it.
` And finally, be aware that members of the
`public may be listening to this oral hearing, so you
`want to avoid any confident -- making any statements
`that you would consider to be confidential information.
`This is not a closed hearing.
` All right. We've -- I'd like to ask -- I'd
`like to begin by asking the -- well, we'll first hear
`from the Petitioner on the -- on the Petitioner's case
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`in chief, and then, and the Petitioner has the option to
`reserve some time for rebuttal. Then, we will hear from
`the Patent Owner in opposition to the Petitioner's case,
`and the Patent Owner can reserve some time for
`surrebuttal.
` So beginning with the Petitioner, how much time
`would you like for your opening and how much time would
`you like to reserve for rebuttal? Each side gets 45
`minutes, by the way.
` MR. CLEMENTS: Your Honor, I will do 35 minutes
`for my initial case, and ten minutes for rebuttal.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Great. Thank you so
`much.
` Is the Patent Owner prepared to tell me now, or
`do you want to wait until we -- we get to you?
` MR. PETRSORIC: I would reserve the -- the same
`allotment, Your Honor.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. So 35 minutes and 10 for
`surrebuttal.
` All right. I think everyone, then, should be
`ready to proceed. Is that correct?
` MR. PETRSORIC: Your Honor, I'd like to just
`make -- raise one point very quickly just to keep the
`proceedings moving along. Patent Owner has raised --
` JUDGE McNAMARA: This is Mr. Petrsoric, correct?
` MR. PETRSORIC: This is Mr. Petrsoric, yes, Your
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`Honor.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Yes, thank you. Okay.
` MR. PETRSORIC: I apologize.
` The Patent Owner has raised an issue with
`respect to the provision of a significant amount of new
`evidence in reply. Some of which appears in the
`demonstratives. Instead of objecting on a -- on a
`momentary basis, I just wanted to note our general
`objection to that new evidence that was first raised in
`reply.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Two things I would
`comment on with regard to that. No one in this
`particular proceeding requested a preliminary
`conference, you know, concerning objections to -- to any
`demonstratives. And there are no motions to exclude
`pending before us. I am aware, having read the Patent
`Owner Response, that there are issues -- or I'm sorry,
`that -- the Patent Owner sur-reply, that there are
`issues that the Patent Owner has raised concerning the
`Petitioner reply. But for now, as I said, we have no
`motions to exclude before us and no objections before
`us. So I don't expect to hear any -- you can make
`objections, but I -- I don't expect to hear any specific
`argument directed toward a motion, for example. Okay?
` MR. PETRSORIC: Your Honor, this is John
`Petrsoric. We concur, and that was the point of just --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`just noting it on the record prior to moving forward.
`Thank you.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Great. Thank you very
`much.
` All right. Let's begin with the Petitioner.
`If you're ready to start to present your case, we'll
`start the clock.
` MR. CLEMENTS: Thank you. Good afternoon, Your
`Honors. My name is Calmann Clements from Haynes Boone,
`and I'm representing Petitioner, Apple.
` Turning to slide 2. The '215 Patent describes
`and claims no more than the well-known concept of
`encapsulating soft magnetic layers in polymer for use in
`wireless charging receivers. And in general, wireless
`charging systems use a coil, shown here in green, placed
`near a soft magnetic layer, shown here in red. And soft
`magnetic layers are easily magnetized and demagnetized
`which make them useful for wireless charging
`applications. That is, when you apply an AC current to
`the coil, the magnetic flux through that magnetic layer
`is similarly able to switch back-and-forth easily which
`results in better coupling efficiency between charger
`and receiver.
` Turning to slide 3. We see that claim 1 of the
`'215 Patent recites such magnetic layers. Claim 1
`recites a plurality of soft magnetic layers comprising a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`first soft magnetic layer and a second soft magnetic
`layer.
` Turning to slide 4, we start our discussion of
`ground 1 which relies on the combination of Sawa and
`Park.
` Turning to slide 5, Sawa, like the '215 Patent,
`describes a wireless charging power receiver. Sawa
`describes the same configuration of a coil adjacent to a
`plurality of soft magnetic layers for the same purpose
`as the '215 Patent. And we see here that Sawa describes
`a first magnetic plate as well as a second magnetic
`plate. And the Petition identifies the first magnetic
`plate as corresponding to the claimed first magnetic
`layer, and identifies the second magnetic plate as
`corresponding to the claimed second soft magnetic layer.
`And we mapped it this way because Sawa teaches that
`these layers have soft magnetic characteristics.
` Turning to slide 6. When discussing the
`composition of the first magnetic plate, Sawa notes that
`--
` JUDGE LEE: Counsel --
` MR. CLEMENTS: -- silicon can be effective --
` JUDGE LEE: -- this is Judge Lee.
` Can I ask a question, because you just said
`that the reference shows soft magnetic characteristics.
`What is your basis for saying that? Is it because the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`moment you have silicon in it, it automatically is
`deemed to be soft magnetic?
` MR. CLEMENTS: So that's not quite what we're
`saying, Your Honor. What we're saying is that this
`point or this passage here in Sawa on slide 6, it notes
`that silicon is effective for control of a soft magnetic
`characteristic. And so what this indicates is that the
`materials have a soft characteristic. It's not
`necessarily the silicon that makes it that, but this is
`where we get the evidence that Sawa's -- Sawa's
`materials are soft magnetic characteristics.
` JUDGE LEE: Yeah, I wanted to ask you about that
`too. What -- why would you say that? And you know, the
`sentence says, Silicon is an element effective for
`control of a soft magnetic characteristic.
` But then, it doesn't come right out to say that
`it makes a soft -- soft, right. Effective for control
`may mean making it that so that it's not soft. It's
`effective for control of, but it doesn't tell you what
`it's -- what the end result is. So I'm just wondering
`why you read that and automatically say -- Well, because
`it's effective for control of this characteristic, it
`necessarily must mean the end result is soft.
` MR. CLEMENTS: So we read it this way because
`when Sawa is specifically discussing the composition of
`this material, it notes that silicon is an element for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`effective control of a soft magnetic characteristic. I
`don't know why Sawa would say that if the -- the layer
`didn't have a soft magnetic characteristic that it
`wanted to control. So in other words, it has the
`characteristic that it is soft, and --
` JUDGE LEE: That's kind of little speculative
`because it could just be the other way around. Like
`just hypothetically, if you put silicon in it, and it
`becomes hard, this sentence would still work. It's an
`effective -- element effective for control of the soft
`magnetic characteristic. It works the other way too.
`Like the moment you put silicon in it, it's no longer
`soft, and that still works for that sentence.
` MR. CLEMENTS: So it's not just Sawa alone. We
`also have our expert, Dr. Finney, looking at these
`materials and concluding based on the record and what a
`POSITA would understand Saw -- reading Sawa would
`understand, that these are soft magnetic materials.
` JUDGE LEE: I understand but -- I'm sorry, but
`I'm focusing on this aspect. You have a lot of reasons
`why the material is soft. I'm just asking you about
`this particular reason, this particular sentence. And
`you know, I read his testimony, and he is saying because
`it says this, it's effective for control, that means
`it's soft. I'm just questioning why do you
`automatically say the sentence means the material is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`soft, because it could just as well be the other way.
` MR. CLEMENTS: So the way that Sawa reads, it
`often refers to various magnetic characteristics. Like
`a -- the magnet -- the characteristic that it is thick,
`a magnetic characteristic that it has a magnetic
`restriction, so all through Sawa's documents, it refers
`to a magnetic characteristic. So I read this sentence
`to mean it has the magnetic characteristic that it is
`soft.
` JUDGE LEE: And that --
` MR. CLEMENTS: And that --
` JUDGE LEE: -- and silicon is what -- is what is
`put in it to -- to make it soft? That has to be what
`you mean, right?
` MR. CLEMENTS: Well, that's not what we mean.
`We are not saying that it's the silicon that makes it
`soft. What we're saying is that when Sawa mentions the
`benefit of silicon, it's -- it says it helps control the
`characteristic of the magnetic plate which is soft. So
`it's not that it's the silicon --
` JUDGE LEE: Oh, I see.
` MR. CLEMENTS: -- it's --
` JUDGE LEE: Oh, I understand. So it's not the
`silicon, because you're adding silicon to -- it has
`silicon and because silicon is an element effective for
`control of something, then that material must be that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`something which is soft magnetic. That's the logic,
`right?
` MR. CLEMENTS: That's the logic, Your Honor.
`And it's --
` JUDGE LEE: Okay.
` MR. CLEMENTS: -- it's not necessarily the
`silicon. It's the fact that Sawa here is saying that it
`has the characteristics that it is soft, and we want to
`control that.
` JUDGE LEE: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. CLEMENTS: So turning to slide 7, Dr.
`Finney's declaration quotes this paragraph of Sawa, and
`in this paragraph, Sawa lists several example materials
`such as iron chromium, iron nickel, and iron silicon.
` Now, Patent Owner has argued that Sawa's first
`magnetic plate is not a soft magnetic layer, but rather,
`a hard magnetic layer. And so to refute this argument,
`our response cites to pieces of evidence that show that
`Patent Owner is wrong on this point.
` What -- skip ahead to slide 9. As we just
`mentioned Sawa, and Sawa lists iron nickel and iron
`silicon as some of the possible materials for the soft
`magnetic layer. And we can see here, and textbook
`evidence shows that these materials fall within the
`range of what POSITA understood to be soft. That that
`figure there shows a white box labeled soft, and within
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`this box, we see iron silicon and iron nickel. And so
`the background knowledge of POSITA confirms what Sawa
`teaches, that the magnetic layers are soft magnetic
`layers.
` All right. Turning to slide 10, Patent Owner's
`own evidence suggests these materials are soft magnetic
`materials. Again, Sawa lists permalloy as one of the
`options for its soft magnetic layer, and the textbook
`that Patent Owner cited says that permalloy is an alloy
`consisting of 20 percent iron and 80 percent nickel and
`is a soft magnet.
` Turning to slide 11. Despite this evidence
`that shows that Sawa's magnetic layers are soft magnetic
`layers, Patent Owner takes the position that Sawa's
`magnetic layer is a hard magnetic layer. But Patent
`Owner's own expert does not agree with Patent Owner's
`position. We asked Dr. Ricketts in deposition if he
`agreed that Sawa describes a hard magnetic layer, and he
`said no. Dr. Ricketts clarified that Sawa's magnetic
`plate is hard to saturate.
` Turning to slide 12. We see that this is the
`main point of contention that Patent Owner makes, is
`that Sawa describes this soft magnetic -- describes this
`magnetic layer as being hard to saturate. But the
`difficulty of saturation is a different characteristic
`than softness. The claim says nothing about how
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`difficult the magnetic layers are to saturate. The
`claim only recites that the magnetic layers are soft.
`So all of Patent Owner's arguments related to Sawa's
`layer being difficult to saturate are irrelevant.
` Turning to --
` JUDGE LEE: Counsel, this is Judge Lee again.
`Can you go back to slide 9, please.
` MR. CLEMENTS: Yes.
` JUDGE LEE: The textbook reference. That seems
`awfully good for Petitioner, but the question is why do
`you not get to all that until the reply? I mean, it seems
`to say Fe–Ni is by definition soft. It's almost like
`case closed. Because Fe–Ni is a specific material
`disclosed in the reference. But why do you get to tell
`us for of the first time about that in the reply?
` MR. CLEMENTS: So we brought this evidence in
`the reply specifically to refute Patent Owner's argument
`that these layers were hard magnetic materials. And the
`case law says that the Petitioner is allowed to
`supplement the record to respond to Patent Owner's point
`as long as you're not changing your prima facie case or
`as long as you've already made a prima facie case of
`obviousness. And we believe our petition makes that
`prima facie case of obviousness. It identifies Sawa's
`magnetic layers as being soft, and that -- that that
`meets the prima facie case of obviousness. And so --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
` JUDGE LEE: Well, just play -- let me play the
`devil's advocate. I mean, this is deadly. I mean, it's
`expert saying Fe–Ni is soft, but yet your petition is
`nothing like this. The Petition goes like, Oh, because
`-- because silicon can be effective, if you add it to a
`soft material, and because you're adding it to that
`material, that material must be soft. You can see what
`I'm saying. In your Petition, it's like two -- two
`indirectness to get to where you want. So I kind of
`don't see this new argument in the reply as something to
`buttress that. It's like even better than what you have
`in the Petition.
` MR. CLEMENTS: So the original petition makes
`the case that they're -- they're soft materials because
`that is what the claim says. The claim simply recites a
`soft magnetic material. It doesn't list any specific
`reason that it's soft, or any specific type of material.
`It simply says that it's soft. And so we believe it was
`sufficient in the Petition to do what we did and point
`to these layers as being soft. And these -- this
`textbook evidence here isn't to -- the point of it isn't
`necessarily to buttress or fix anything from the
`Petition. It's specifically to respond to Patent
`Owner's point that it is a hard magnetic layer. And so
`we --
` JUDGE LEE: Yeah, but it could be -- it could be
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`a new approach. The Guide clearly says you can't -- you
`can't go off in a new direction. It seems to me like
`you're going off in a new direction. It's almost like
`your first argument is not that good. It kind of takes
`a suggestion, some implications, and now, I'm -- that's
`no good. Let me -- let me give you something even
`better which is the textbook says Fe-Ni is soft. Open
`and closed. And how is that more or less the same thing
`as what you offered at the beginning?
` MR. CLEMENTS: So to answer that, I would say
`that our petition is sufficient to make the case that
`the -- that Sawa's magnetic layer is a soft magnetic --
` JUDGE LEE: Okay. It's say you don't. Let's --
`hypothetically, let's say I don't believe you. It's --
`it's mushy up there, I'm not sure you made the case.
`Then, do you get to rely on your reply evidence to make
`the case?
` MR. CLEMENTS: Our reply evidence helps refute
`Patent Owner's argument that it is not soft.
` JUDGE LEE: Well, but what if we decide your
`original argument is no good? You know, simply saying
`silicon is effective in controlling the soft material,
`that doesn't mean plate -- either plate is soft. Let's
`say, you know, I come out with that conclusion, then, do
`I go, Well, never mind that because the Petition gives
`me a different way to get there in the reply.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
` MR. CLEMENTS: I think we can look at all the
`evidence in trial in total, and all the evidence
`overwhelmingly shows that Sawa's materials are soft
`magnetic layers. And the Petition made that prima facie
`case, and -- and yet Patent Owner now, you know, has a
`chance to rebut that because the prima facie case is the
`rebuttal presumption that it's true.
` JUDGE LEE: Yeah, but hypothetically I'm saying
`what if I conclude you didn't make a prima facie case in
`your petition? That's my question. Let's say you
`didn't do it in your petition. Now, am I going to
`excuse that and say, Oh, but I'm persuaded by your
`reply.
` MR. CLEMENTS: Again, I would just say that the
`evidence that we have along with Patent Owner's
`evidence, so even if we threw out all of this kind of
`evidence like this textbook evidence, we still have
`Patent Owner's own expert in his deposition saying that
`-- not agreeing with Patent Owner that it is a hard
`magnetic layer, and we also have Patent Owner's own
`evidence to decide --
` JUDGE LEE: Yeah, but --
` MR. CLEMENTS: -- saying that similar --
` JUDGE LEE: -- you're not answering my question.
`So you're saying you're prepared just let us not
`consider the new -- new evidence, then? Because now
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`you're saying even if we don't consider it, you have
`something else. My question is why should we look at
`your textbook evidence which is so much stronger than a
`different approach from what you did in your petition.
` MR. CLEMENTS: So I don't think the fact that
`our rebuttal evidence is stronger is a reason to ignore
`what we said in the Petition. Even -- even if our
`rebuttal argument is -- is more persuasive --
` JUDGE LEE: So --
` MR. CLEMENTS: -- I don't think --
` JUDGE LEE: -- we're not ignoring it. I'm just
`saying what if I say your original evidence is not good
`enough, should I -- why should I consider your textbook
`evidence offer for the first time in the reply?
` MR. CLEMENTS: I would say that the evidence as
`a whole, and the trial record shows that a POSITA would
`understand Sawa's materials to be soft.
` JUDGE LEE: Okay. I don't want to take up too
`much of your time. Go ahead. You can move on to
`something else if you'd like.
` MR. CLEMENTS: All right. So turning to slide
`13. To summarize, the Petition establishes that Sawa's
`magnetic plates are soft magnetic layers. Sawa's list
`of exemplary materials, such as permalloy or iron nickel
`are well-known soft magnetic materials. And the fact
`that Sawa's first magnetic plate is hard to saturate
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`does not mean that it is a hard magnetic layer.
` Turning to slide 14, we move on to the next
`point. So before the '215 Patent, POSITAs knew to
`encapsulate magnetic layer in polymer so as to protect
`it from corrosion. The '215 Patent claims this known
`concept by reciting a top polymeric layer and a bottom
`polymeric layer that are connected through extending
`portions.
` Moving to slide 15. We see that Sawa teaches
`exactly what is claimed. Magnetic layers encapsulated
`in polymer. The annotated figure shows a top polymer in
`blue, and that top polymer layer includes an extending
`portion that extends beyond the edge of the magnetic
`layers shown in red. Similarly, on the bottom, we have
`a second polymeric layer shown in blue, and that bottom
`polymeric layer also includes an extending portion that
`extends beyond the edge of the magnetic layers and
`connects to the extending portion of the top polymer
`layer there.
` And one point of contention is the meaning of
`the word, connected. While Sawa itself does not denote
`a specific point at which the extending portions
`connect, Dr. Finney has identified an exemplary point at
`which they connect. And this is no different than what
`the '215 Patent describes.
` Turning to slide 16. We can see that the '215
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`Patent also illustrates a top and bottom extending
`portions as a single integrated piece and labeled with
`the same reference numeral, 313.
` Turning to slide 17. We can see Sawa in
`comparison with the '215 Patent. And Sawa illustrates
`encapsulation in the same way as the '215 Patent. And I
`further note that the claim does not recite a method of
`manufacturing the polymeric layers. It describes only
`the final result, which is that the magnetic layers
`become encapsulated in polymer. And the end product is
`taught by Sawa.
` Turning to slide 18. We see that both of the
`challenged independent claims are apparatus claims; that
`is, they do not recite a specific method of
`manufacturer. They merely recite extending portions
`that are connected.
` Turning to slide 19. Patent Owner has
`attempted to overcome Sawa's teaching by advocating for
`a claim construction that requires that the polymeric
`layers be distinct polymeric layers that were previously
`separate but then connected. But such method steps are
`not recited in the claim.
` Turning to slide 20. To summarize, Sawa
`teaches that magnetic layer are encapsulated in polymer
`as claimed in the '215 Patent. And Patent Owner's
`proposed construction imports method steps not recited
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`in the claim and does not overcome Sawa's teachings.
` Turning to slide 21. We move on to Ground 2.
` Turning to slide 22. The main point of
`contention for Ground 2 is whether it would have been
`obvious to secure Sawa's encapsulating polymer to the
`magnetic layers with adhesive as taught by Inoue. And
`as a baseline, both Sawa and Inoue are inventors from
`the same company who were both working on similar types
`of wireless charging devices. And as we can see from
`the figure above, the wireless charging devices
`described by both Sawa and Inoue are highly similar.
` Turning to slide 23. Sawa describes and
`illustrates a polymeric layer secured to the magnetic
`plates. Sawa leaves the implementation details of the
`resin film to the background knowledge of a POSITA.
`Accordingly, a POSITA would have found it obvious and
`would have been motivated to look to known techniques
`for securing polymer to adhesives. As we can see in the
`figure on the right, Inoue shows that one known
`technique for securing polymer to magnetic layers in
`wireless charging systems was to use adhesives. And a
`POSITA would have therefore found it obvious to use an
`adhesive to secure Sawa's polymer film to the magnetic
`layer.
` Turning to slide 24. We see what this
`technique would look like. Dr. Finney illustrates what
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`this would look like with an adhesive layer shown in
`purple to secure the polymer to the magnetic layer.
` Skipping ahead to slide 26. Patent Owner
`argues that the Petition establishes POSITAs could have,
`but not would have, made the combination. But Inoue does
`more than simply establish that POSITAs could have made
`the proposed combination. POSITAs actually were making
`the proposed combination. And Inoue thus establishes
`that before the '215 Patent, using adhesives to secure
`polymeric to a magnetic layer was not new.
` Turning to slide 27. Patent Owner argues that
`the Petition provides no benefits to using adhesives as
`proposed. But the portions of KSR that Patent Owner
`cites to note that it is important to identify a reason
`that would have prompted a POSITA to combine elements
`the way the claimed invention does, and the Petition
`does precisely that.
` For example, as shown on slide 28, the Petition
`explains that a POSITA would have been motivated to look
`to known implementation technique. Sawa focuses on the
`composition of its magnetic layers and leaves the
`implementation details of the polymer film to the
`background knowledge of a POSITA. The background
`knowledge of a POSITA as evidenced by Inoue shows that
`using adhesives was a known technique, and a POSITA
`would have found it obvious and beneficial to use tried
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
`and true techniques. As the Petition explains, using
`Inoue's technique would have provided the predicable
`results of effectively securing polymer to magnetic
`material.
` So what the '215 Patent claims is the very
`thing that KSR said was the principal reason for
`declining to allow patents. A combination that only
`unites old elements with no change in the respective
`functions is simply obvious. It just can't be that you
`get a patent for claiming things that were already
`known. And using adhesives to secure polymer to
`magnetic layers and wireless charging applications was
`already known.
` Turning to slide 29. To summarize, Sawa shows
`that it was known to secure polymer to magnetic layers.
`Inoue shows that it was known to use adhesives to do so.
`And because POSITAs were already using adhesive layers
`to secure polymers to magnetic sheets in wireless
`charging applications, a POSITA would have found it
`obvious to do the same in Sawa.
` And if there are no further questions, Your
`Honors, I would reserve my remaining time for rebuttal.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: There don't appear any -- to be
`any further questions, so you'll have 22 minutes for
`rebuttal.
` MR. CLEMENTS: Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00117
`Patent 9,843,215 B2
`
` JUDGE McNAMARA: All right. Let's move on.
`Patent Owner, whenever you're ready.
` MR. PETRSORIC: This is John Petrsoric for the
`Patent Owner.
` Before I begin presenting any substance, I'd
`first like to note that the '215 Patent was developed by
`LG Innotek, which is one of the oldest electronic
`component companies in Korea and the pioneer in
`development of wireless charging technology.
` Now, turning to whether Sawa meets the claim
`for soft magnetic layer, and let me give an overarching
`thought here. It's the end result in terms of how that
`first magnetic plate in Sawa includes an elemental
`composition and how it's processed to determine whether
`it could meet the soft magnetic layer as claimed in the
`'215 Patent. And the first thing I'd like to note is
`that Sawa teaches away from using a conventional soft
`magnetic thin plate because it will perform adversely in
`Sawa's wireless charging system. Sawa does describe
`compositions that well, in some form exhibit soft
`magnetic characteristics. But Sawa also describes
`proces
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
