UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`———————
`
`IPR2022-00118
`U.S. Patent No. 10,804,740
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOSHUA PHINNEY,
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`1
`
`
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`———————
`
`IPR2022-00118
`U.S. Patent No. 10,804,740
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOSHUA PHINNEY,
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`1
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3
`I.
`Qualifications and Professional Experience .................................................... 4
`II.
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 8
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards ................................................................................ 9
`V.
`Background .................................................................................................... 11
`VI. Overview of the ’740 Patent .......................................................................... 13
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 16
`VIII. Identification of how the Claims are Unpatentable ....................................... 17
`A. Ground 1: Claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 19, 20 are obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hasegawa. ......................................................... 18
`1.
`Summary of Hasegawa .................................................. 18
`2.
`Claim 6 ........................................................................... 23
`3.
`Claim 7 ........................................................................... 51
`4.
`Claim 16 ......................................................................... 52
`5.
`Claim 17 ......................................................................... 55
`6.
`Claim 19 ......................................................................... 55
`7.
`Claim 20 ......................................................................... 58
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`I, Joshua Phinney, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Apple Inc. in the matter
`
`of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,804,740 (“the ’740 Patent”) to An
`
`et al.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 6,
`
`7, 16, 17, 19, and 20 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’740 Patent are unpatentable
`
`as they would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art. It is my
`
`opinion that all of the limitations of the challenged claims would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA.
`
`4.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Ex.1002;
`
`
`
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`the ’740 Patent, Ex.1001;
`
`the prosecution history of the ’740 Patent (“’740 File History”),
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`c.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0021212 to
`
`Hasegawa et al. (“Hasegawa”), Ex.1005;
`
`d.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0069961 to Akiho et al.; Ex.
`
`1006;
`
`e.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0306656 Tabata et al.;
`
`Ex.1007;
`
`f.
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent 8,384,263 to Hiramatsu et al; Ex.1008;
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`the documents listed above;
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for obviousness,
`
`and any additional authoritative documents as cited in the body of this
`
`declaration; and
`
`my own knowledge and experience based upon my work in the field
`
`of networking as described below.
`
`6.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in any quoted material has been
`
`added.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`7. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in Exhibit 1004. The
`
`following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`experience.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`8.
`
`I am a Principal Engineer in the Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science practice at Exponent, an engineering and scientific consulting firm
`
`headquartered at 149 Commonwealth Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025. I
`
`received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (“MIT”) in 2005. I also earned S.M. and B.S. degrees in Electrical
`
`Engineering from MIT and the University of Illinois, Chicago (“UIC”),
`
`respectively.
`
`9. My master’s thesis at MIT focused on the miniaturization of power
`
`converters, by reducing the energy storage and improving the performance of
`
`inductors. As part of this work, I designed, tested, and constructed ferrite, iron-
`
`powder, and air-core inductors, while minimizing magnetic losses. During this
`
`time, I invented with my advisor, Dr. David Perreault, an electrical component
`
`with a capacitive impedance and an inductance-cancellation feature provided by
`
`magnetically coupled windings. A filter having a capacitor with inductance
`
`cancellation provides enhanced performance over frequency compared with
`
`conventional capacitors. This work was later extended to a second patent, with
`
`magnetically coupled windings used to improve EMI filters and common-mode
`
`chokes.
`
`10. My doctoral work at MIT centered on miniaturization of power
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`converters and magnetics. As part of my doctoral work, I constructed and modeled
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`planar magnetic systems, including magnetically coupled, printed magnetic coils.
`
`By incorporating such compact, magnetic structures into power converters, the
`
`resulting converter enjoyed multiple benefits, including waveform-shaping and
`
`reduction of switch stresses. Through the modeling associated with this
`
`dissertation, I become proficient in methods for analyzing the inductances of
`
`packages and interconnects, especially planar or filamentous systems of
`
`conductors.
`
`11.
`
` For my publications related to both my Master’s and Ph.D. thesis, I
`
`received the William M. Portnoy Prize Paper Award (2003) and the IEEE Power
`
`Electronics Society Transactions Prize Paper Award (2004).
`
`12. After earning my Ph.D., I joined Exponent and have led technical
`
`investigations to portable electronic devices, microcomputers, as well as industrial
`
`and consumer devices with embedded controllers. My job functions include
`
`analyzing hardware and software of these devices to understand their modes of
`
`failure, and testifying regarding these devices in legal matters involving patents
`
`and trade secrets.
`
`13. As part of my employment at Exponent, I have performed design,
`
`design reviews, and failure analysis for wireless charging and communication
`
`systems. The focus of this work has been (1) coupling between transmitter and
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`receiver coils from the standpoint of efficiency and magnetic-field exposure to
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`users, in particular for the Power Matters Alliance; (2) coupling of interrogators
`
`and transponder coils in printed magnetic cards; and (3) integrated-circuit and coil
`
`failures due to wear, dimensional changes, and triboelectric charging. In addition
`
`to testifying regarding resonant and inductive wireless-power transfer, I have
`
`consulted for industry regarding coil design, RFID and near-field communication
`
`(NFC) integrated circuits, modulation methods, and on-metal RFID tags.
`
`14.
`
`I have testified regarding the software-defined features, internal
`
`circuitry, and physical embodiments of electronic equipment. Regarding
`
`electronics, I have testified regarding power electronics in communication systems,
`
`wind turbines, grid-scale photovoltaic plants, and consumer electronics. In
`
`addition, I have testified regarding control and compensation in industrial
`
`controllers, voltage regulators, and switched-mode power converters. My
`
`experience with wireless RF circuitry includes failure analysis of amplifiers, power
`
`supplies, matching networks, and multiplexers in satellites, semiconductor-
`
`processing equipment, and medical devices.
`
`15. Regarding the mechanical elements of electronic equipment, I have
`
`testified regarding buttons and touch interfaces, connectors, linear and rotary
`
`actuators, position-measuring devices, and the design and construction of modular
`
`housings for computerized equipment and peripherals. In particular, I have
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`testified regarding detachable components as they are constructed in relation to the
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`housing and underlying electronic assemblies, including printed circuit boards, flex
`
`printed circuits, and other connector assemblies within the housing of electronic
`
`equipment.
`
`16.
`
`In addition to the forgoing, I perform electromagnetic assessment of
`
`utility and communication infrastructure. These issues include permitting,
`
`interference, and environmental impact of radar, AC and HVDC transmission
`
`lines, substations, photovoltaic installations, generators, broadcast antennas, and
`
`electrified mass transit systems.
`
`17.
`
`I am being compensated for my work associated with this case plus
`
`reimbursement of reasonable expenses. My compensation is not contingent on my
`
`opinions or the outcome of the case, and I have no other interest in this case or the
`
`parties thereto.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`18.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`19. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`’740 Patent, as of its earliest possible filing date of March 23, 2012, would have
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the wireless power arts that are
`
`pertinent to the ’740 Patent. That person would have a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of
`
`experience working in the electrical engineering field. Lack of work experience
`
`can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.
`
`20. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as of the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the ’740 Patent (i.e., March 23, 2012). Unless otherwise
`
`stated, when I provide my understanding and analysis below, it is consistent with
`
`the level of a POSITA prior to the alleged priority date of the ’740 Patent.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`21.
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’740 Patent, I am relying on certain basic
`
`legal principles that counsel have explained to me. These principles are discussed
`
`below.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’740 Patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`invention recited in the ’740 Patent. For purposes of this Declaration, I am
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`applying March 23, 2012 as the earliest possible priority date of the ’740 Patent.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention 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 the subject
`
`matter pertains. I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`25.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the
`
`obviousness of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include,
`
`among other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, unexpected results of
`
`the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the
`
`alleged invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the
`
`alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged invention.
`
`I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`26.
`
`I am not aware of any allegations by the named inventor of the ’740
`
`Patent or any assignee of the ’740 Patent that any secondary considerations are
`
`relevant to the obviousness analysis of any Challenged Claim of the ’740 Patent.
`
`V. BACKGROUND
`
`27. Mobile devices such as smart phones provide users with a wide
`
`variety of communication mechanisms such as phone calls, text messages, internet
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`access, as well as providing other features. Mobile devices typically include a
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`built-in or detachable battery pack that is chargeable. Some types of devices may
`
`be charged wirelessly using the principle of electromagnetic induction.
`
`“[E]lectromagnetic induction refers to the generation of an electric current through
`
`induction of a voltage when a magnetic field is changed around a conductor.”
`
`Ex.1001, 1:37-40. The ’740 Patent explains that the principle of electromagnetic
`
`induction has been extensively used in devices since the 1880s:
`
`A wireless power transmission or a wireless energy transfer refers to a
`technology of wirelessly transferring electric energy to desired devices.
`In the 1800's, an electric motor or a transformer employing the principle
`of electromagnetic induction has been extensively used and then a
`method of transmitting electrical energy by irradiating electromagnetic
`waves, such as radio waves or lasers, has been suggested. Actually,
`electrical toothbrushes or electrical razors, which are frequently used in
`daily life, are charged based on the principle of electromagnetic
`induction. The electromagnetic induction refers to the generation of an
`electric current through induction of a voltage when a magnetic field is
`changed around a conductor. The electromagnetic induction scheme
`has been successfully commercialized for electronic appliances having
`small sizes, but represents a problem in that the transmission distance
`of power is too short.
`
`Ex.1001, 1:28-43.
`
`28.
`
`In the context of more recent portable devices, the principle of
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`electromagnetic induction has been applied to enable charging of a portable device
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`as it rests on a charging pad. Typically, a coil in the wirelessly chargeable device is
`
`inductively coupled with a coil in the charging pad, and current is generated in the
`
`device’s coil and transferred to its battery. The coil in the wirelessly chargeable
`
`device is one component of several that are common to most wireless power
`
`receivers. Other common components include a magnetic layer adjacent to the coil
`
`to reduce the amount of the magnetic field leaked to the outside, an adhesive layer
`
`to attach the coil to the magnetic layer, and several components that together
`
`electrically connect the coil to the load (e.g., a battery) in the chargeable device.
`
`29. As will be described in more detail below, the ’740 Patent describes
`
`and claims no more than what was already known in the art with regard to the
`
`components of common wireless power receivers.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’740 PATENT
`
`30. The ’740 patent generally relates to wireless power reception using
`
`electromagnetic induction. Ex.1001, Abstract, 1:21-27, 4:26-29.
`
`31.
`
`It is my opinion that the Challenged Claims of the ’740 Patent recite
`
`an obvious arrangement of components configured to carry out wireless power
`
`reception via electromagnetic induction. For example, claim 6 recites:
`
`6. A wireless power receiver, comprising:
`
`an adhesive layer comprising a receiving space;
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`a coil on the adhesive layer;
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`a first connection terminal connected to an outer end of the coil;
`
`a second connection terminal connected to an inner end of the coil; and
`
`a connecting unit overlapping the receiving space in a vertical direction
`perpendicular to the adhesive layer,
`
`wherein the connecting unit comprises:
`
`a third connection terminal connected to the first connection terminal;
`
`a fourth connection terminal connected to the second connection
`terminal; and
`
`a wiring layer connected to the third connection terminal and the fourth
`terminal.
`
`32. The claimed “wireless power receiver” includes well-known
`
`components such as a “coil,” an “adhesive layer,” and “connection terminals”
`
`spatially arranged with respect to generic elements, such as a “receiving space” in
`
`an adhesive layer and a “connecting unit.”
`
`33.
`
`I’ve reviewed the specification of the ’740 patent and it does not
`
`provide many details about the components recited in the Challenged Claims. For
`
`example, the embodiment of Fig. 26 (reproduced below) broadly describes a
`
`wireless power receiver 1000 of a “portable terminal” having a receiving space 130
`
`in an adhesive layer 710, as well as coil 230, connecting unit 300, and various
`
`connection terminals. Ex.1001, 14:46-16:64.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 26.
`34. The connecting unit 300 is generally described as having several
`
`different components, including first, second, third, and fourth connection
`
`terminals and a wiring layer, that together “transfer the power received from the
`
`coil unit 200 to a load (not shown) through the receiver circuit.” Ex.1001, 15:38-
`
`60, Figs. 27, 28. The first and second connection terminals of the connecting unit
`
`300 respectively connect to the outer end and inner end of the coil 230, as
`
`illustrated in Fig. 27.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 27.
`I note that the Challenged Claims recite that the connecting unit is
`
`
`
`35.
`
`either “overlapping the receiving space in a vertical direction perpendicular to the
`
`adhesive layer” (claim 6) or “disposed corresponding to the receiving space”
`
`(claim 16). The text of ’740 Patent specification does not provide additional details
`
`with respect to these spatial relationships between the connecting unit and the
`
`receiving space in the adhesive layer 710.
`
`36. As I explain below, the concept of a wireless power receiver having
`
`these common components broadly arranged as claimed was not new as of the
`
`earliest alleged priority date of the ’740 Patent.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`37.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’740
`
`Patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`for the purposes of this inter partes review, the claims are to be construed under
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`the so-called Phillips standard, under which claim terms are given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in light of the specification and prosecution history, unless the inventor has set
`
`forth a special meaning for a term. It is my opinion that none of the claim terms
`
`require a specific construction for the purposes of this declaration, and all will be
`
`given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`38.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’740 Patent would have been obvious in view of the prior art. The
`
`discussion below provides a detailed analysis of how the prior art reference
`
`identified below teaches the limitations of the Challenged Claims of the ’740
`
`Patent.
`
`39. As part of my analysis, I have considered the scope and content of the
`
`prior art and any differences between the alleged invention and the prior art. I
`
`describe in detail below the scope and content of the prior art, as well as any
`
`differences between the alleged invention and the prior art, on an element-by-
`
`element basis for each Challenged Claims of the ’740 Patent.
`
`40. As described in detail below, the alleged invention of the Challenged
`
`Claims would have been obvious in view of the teachings of the identified prior art
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`references as well as the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 19, 20 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Hasegawa.
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Hasegawa
`
`
`
`41. Like the ’740 Patent, Hasegawa relates to “non-contact power
`
`transmission” in an electronic device such as a “portable telephone.” Ex.1005,
`
`[0002], [0062], Fig. 1. Hasegawa describes a “coil unit” in the telephone for
`
`wireless power reception via electromagnetic induction:
`
`A secondary-side electronic instrument (e.g., portable telephone 20) is
`charged using a primary-side electronic instrument (e.g., charger 10) by
`non-contact power transmission utilizing electromagnetic induction
`that occurs between a coil of a coil unit 12 of the charger 10 and a coil
`of a coil unit 22 of the portable telephone 20.
`
`Ex.1005, [0062].
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Portable telephone 20
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`Coil unit 22
`
`Wireless charger 10 with
`coil unit 12
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`42. The coil unit in the portable telephone includes the same common
`
`components as the ’740 Patent’s wireless power receiver, arranged in the same
`
`way. Ex.1005, [0062], [0063], [0065], [0066]. For example, with reference to Fig.
`
`2, reproduced below, Hasegawa explains that its coil unit includes a planar coil 30
`
`attached to a magnetic sheet 40 with an adhesive spacer 60. Ex.1005, [0067],
`
`[0068], [0072]. The adhesive spacer 60 includes a slit 62 to accommodate a lead
`
`line 34 connected to the inner end of the planar coil. Ex.1005, [0068], [0072].
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`Planar coil 30
`
`Lead lines 34, 35
`
`Adhesive spacer 60
`with slit 62
`
`Magnetic sheet 40
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`43. Hasegawa explains that the purpose of the slit 62 is “to avoid at least
`
`
`
`the inner end lead line 34” when the coil unit is assembled, as illustrated in Fig. 3A
`
`below. Ex.1005, [0072]. Specifically, due to the slit, “the non-transmission side 32
`
`of the planar coil 30 can be made flat and caused to adhere to the magnetic sheet
`
`40 by utilizing the spacer member 60.” Ex.1005, [0073]. In other words, when the
`
`planar coil 30 is adhered to the magnetic sheet 40, the inner end lead line 34 is
`
`disposed within the slit 62 of the adhesive layer, as I have shown in the annotated
`
`figure below.
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Planar coil 30 adhered to
`magnetic sheet with
`adhesive layer
`
`Lead line 34 disposed
`within slit 62 of
`adhesive layer
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 3A (annotated)
`
`44. Hasegawa also explains that the lead lines 34 and 35 connect to coil
`
`connection pads 103 (Fig. 3A above) on a substrate 100, which includes a wiring
`
`pattern that connects the coil unit to the portable telephone, as I have illustrated in
`
`Fig. 4 below. Ex.1005, [0074], [0079]. I note that the coil connections pads 103 are
`
`located on the front side 101 of the substrate 100, which is shown in both Fig. 3A
`
`and Fig. 4. However, it appears that the figures 3A and 4 are mirror images of one
`
`another with respect to the illustrated placement of the components on the front
`
`side 101. For example, the coil connection pads 103 are illustrated on the top right
`
`edge of the front side 101 in Fig. 3A, but are illustrated on the top left edge of the
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`front side 101 in Fig. 4. Similarly, the line of eight contacts for connection to other
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`
`
`components in the portable telephone are illustrated on bottom left edge of the
`
`front side 101 in Fig. 3A, but are illustrated on the bottom right edge of the front
`
`side 101 in Fig. 4. These superficial differences do not affect my analysis of the
`
`teachings of Hasegawa.
`
`Coil connection
`pads 103
`
`Wiring pattern
`
`Substrate 100
`
`Contacts for
`connection to
`portable phone
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 4 (annotated)
`
`45. As illustrated in Figs. 2, 3A, and 4 above, the lead lines 34 and 35, the
`
`coil connection pads 103, and the wiring pattern on substrate 100 together
`
`electrically connect the power-receiving planar coil 30 to the portable telephone.
`
`Ex.1005, [0062], [0068], [0074], [0079], Figs. 1, 3A, 4. The electric connection
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`created by these components carries the power inductively received by the coil 30
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`to a load, such as a battery, in the portable telephone 20 to charge it, as explained
`
`by Hasegawa:
`
`A secondary-side electronic instrument (e.g., portable telephone 20) is
`charged using a primary-side electronic instrument (e.g., charger 10) by
`non-contact power transmission utilizing electromagnetic induction
`that occurs between a coil of a coil unit 12 of the charger 10 and a coil
`of a coil unit 22 of the portable telephone 20.
`
`Ex.1005, [0062].
`
`2.
`[6.0] A wireless power receiver, comprising:
`
`Claim 6
`
`46. Hasegawa discloses a coil unit 22 (wireless power receiver) within a
`
`portable telephone 20 that wirelessly receives power from a coil unit 12 within a
`
`charger 10, as shown in the annotated Fig. 1 below:
`
`FIG. 1 is a view schematically showing a charger 10 and a charging
`target 20. A secondary-side electronic instrument (e.g., portable
`telephone 20) is charged using a primary-side electronic instrument
`(e.g., charger 10) by non-contact power transmission utilizing
`electromagnetic induction that occurs between a coil of a coil unit
`12 of the charger 10 and a coil of a coil unit 22 of the portable
`telephone 20.
`
`Opposite sides of the coil units 12 and 22 when performing non-contact
`power transmission as shown in FIG. 1 are referred to as transmission
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`sides. In FIG. 1, the upper side of the coil unit 12 is the transmission
`side, and the lower side of the coil unit 22 is the transmission side. The
`side opposite to the transmission side is referred to as a non-
`transmission side.”
`
`Hasegawa, [0062]-[0063].
`
`Portable telephone 20
`
`Wireless charger 10 with
`coil unit 12
`
`Coil unit 22
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`47. Hasegawa notes that the examples in its figures and specification
`
`apply to both the coil unit 12 in the charger and the coil unit 22 in the portable
`
`telephone:
`
`The configurations of the coil units 12 and 22 are described below with
`reference to FIGS. 2, 3A, and 3B taking the coil unit 12 as an example.
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`Note that the structure shown in FIG. 2 may also be applied to the
`coil unit 22.
`
`Ex.1005, [0065]. Accordingly, a reference to coil unit 12 in Hasegawa’s
`
`description is also applicable to coil unit 22.
`
`[6.1] an adhesive layer comprising a receiving space
`
`48. Hasegawa teaches that its coil unit 22 includes a spacer member 60
`
`that is a double-sided adhesive sheet, where the spacer member includes a slit 62
`
`(receiving space) to accommodate lead line 34 when coil 30 is adhered to magnetic
`
`sheet 40, as shown in the exploded oblique view of Fig. 2:
`
`FIG. 2 is an exploded oblique view showing the coil unit 12, FIG.
`3A is an oblique view showing the coil unit 12 from the front side, and
`FIG. 3B is an oblique view showing the coil unit 12 from the back side.
`
`Hasegawa, [0066].
`
`In this embodiment, a spacer member 60 having a thickness
`substantially equal to the thickness of the inner end lead line 34 is
`provided between the planar coil 30 and the magnetic sheet 40. The
`spacer member 60 is formed in the shape of a circle having almost the
`same diameter as that of the planar coil 30, and has a slit 62 so as to
`avoid at least the inner end lead line 34. The spacer member 60 is a
`double-sided adhesive sheet, for example. The spacer member 60
`bonds the planar coil 30 to the magnetic sheet 40.
`
`Hasegawa, [0072].
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`
`
`Adhesive spacer 60
`with slit 62
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`49. Thus, Hasegawa’s teaching of an adhesive spacer member comprising
`
`a slit renders obvious “an adhesive layer comprising a receiving space,” as recited
`
`in the claim.
`
`[6.2] a coil on the adhesive layer;
`50. Hasegawa teaches that the coil unit 22 includes a planar coil 30 that is
`
`disposed on the adhesive spacer 60, such that the planar coil is bonded to the
`
`magnetic sheet 40:
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,804,740
`
`In FIG. 2, the coil unit 12 is basically configured to include a planar
`coil (coil) 30 that has a transmission side 31 and a non-transmission
`side 32, a magnetic sheet 40 provided over the non-transmission side
`32 of the planar coil 30, and a heat sink/magnetic shield plate 50 stacked
`on the side of the magnetic sheet opposite to the side that faces the
`planar coil 30. The planar coil 30 is not particularly limited insofar
`as the planar coil 30 is a flat (planar) coil. For example, an air-core
`coil formed by winding a single-core or multi-core coated coil wire
`in a plane may be used as the planar coil 30. In this embodiment, the
`planar coil 30 has
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
