`U.S. Patent No. 10,804,740
`
`Apple Inc. v. Scramoge Technology, Ltd., Case IPR2022-00118
`
`Scott T. Jarratt,
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`Ex.1024 / IPR2022-00118 / Page 1 of 31
`APPLE INC. v. SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY, LTD.
`
`
`
`The ’740 Patent
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 26; ’740; Petition, 7
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 27; ’740; Petition, 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`2
`
`
`
`Original Claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 19, and 20
`
`Substitute Claims 21-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`3
`
`
`
`’740 Patent, Claim 6
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`4
`
`
`
`Hasegawa renders obvious the claimed “wireless power receiver”
`
`Hasegawa
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 2 (annotated); ’740 Petition, 17.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`5
`
`
`
`Hasegawa renders obvious the claimed “connecting unit”
`
`Hasegawa
`
`Ex.1005, Figs. 3A and 4 (annotated); ’740 Petition, 30.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s claim construction unduly limits the claims
`
`Response, 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`7
`
`
`
`Claims do not recite a “coil unit”
`
`“coil” not “coil unit”
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s case law disproves “coil unit” theory
`
`Patent Owner:
`“connected” = separate
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 6 Pet. Reply, 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`9
`
`
`
`Specification does not support “coil unit” theory
`
`‘740 Patent Specification
`
`Ex.1001, 10:23-36; Pet. Reply, 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`10
`
`
`
`The claims are broader than the specification
`
`Connecting unit
`“comprises” multiple,
`connected elements
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 6; Pet. Reply, 14-15.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s claim construction unduly limits the claims
`
`Summary
`
`• Claims do not recite a “coil unit” containing the first and second connection
`terminals
`
`• No requirement the first and second connection terminals are “separate
`and distinct” from the open-ended connecting unit
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s argument hinges upon its improper claim construction
`
`PO Response, 30-31.
`
`PO Response, 32-33.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO Response, 33.
`
`13
`
`13
`
`
`
`Hasegawa’s connecting unit has same elements, connections, and purpose
`
`Ex.1005, [0074]; ‘740 Petition, 33-35
`
`Ex.1005, Figs. 3A and 4 (annotated); ’740 Petition, 30.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`14
`
`
`
`Original Claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 19, and 20
`
`Substitute Claims 21-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`15
`
`
`
`Substitute Claim 21
`
`PO Revised Motion to Amend, 17.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`16
`
`
`
`Kato renders obvious substitute claim 21
`
`Ex.1017, Figs. 17, 19 (annotated); Second Opposition, 3, 18
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`17
`
`
`
`Patent Owner: “otherwise separate” = “otherwise not connected”
`
`PO Reply, 4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`18
`
`
`
`Inconsistent usage within substitute claim 21
`
`“separate” encompasses
`“connected”
`
`“separate” = “not
`connected”
`
`Pet. Sur-Reply, 2-3.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`19
`
`
`
`Preliminary Guidance: “separate” does not mean “not connected”
`
`Guidance, 8; Pet. Sur-Reply, 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`20
`
`
`
`Inconsistent with PO Response
`
`PO Response: Connecting
`unit already separate
`because “connected”
`
`“something to the
`contrary” of separate
`
`Pet. Sur-Reply, 4-5.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`21
`
`
`
`Substitute Claim 23
`
`PO Revised Motion to Amend, 18-19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`22
`
`
`
`Kato renders obvious substitute claim 23
`
`Ex.1017, Fig. 19 (annotated); Second Opposition, 22
`
`Ex.1022, Fig. 38; Second Opposition, 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`23
`
`
`
`Patent Owner unduly narrows the claim language
`
`PO Reply, 8-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`24
`
`
`
`Patent Owner unduly narrows the claim language
`
`PO Reply, 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`25
`
`
`
`Patent Owner unduly narrows the claim language
`
`PO Reply, 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments hinge upon its improper claim construction
`
`PO Reply, 12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO Reply, 12.
`
`27
`
`27
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,804,740
`
`Apple Inc. v. Scramoge Technology, Ltd., Case IPR2022-00118
`
`Scott T. Jarratt,
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`
`
`Kato renders obvious substitute claim 23
`
`Ex.1017, Fig. 19 (annotated); Second Opposition,18
`
`Ex.1017, Fig. 19 (annotated); Second Opposition,19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`29
`
`
`
`Federal Circuit Precedent
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`Pet. Reply, 8-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`30
`
`
`
`Federal Circuit Precedent
`
`Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`Pet. Reply, 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`31
`
`