`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 29
`Entered: March 21, 2023
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`IPR 2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 2, 2023
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before, JAMESON LEE, KARL D. EASTHOM, and AARON W. MOORE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`SCOTT T. JARRATT, ESQUIRE
`Haynes & Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue
`Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BRETT COOPER, ESQUIRE
`JOHN PETRSORIC, ESQUIRE
`BC Law Group
`1803 South Kanner Highway
`Stuart, FL 34994
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, by video, on
`Thursday, February 2, 2023, commencing at 10:00 a.m., EDT, at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, before Julie Souza, Notary Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` - - - - -
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Good morning. This is Judge Easthom at the
`Patent & Trademark Office. We have also Judges Moore and Lee. This
`case is Apple, Inc., v. Scamoge Technology Ltd., IPR 2022-00120 and the
`patent challenges 9,997,962 B2.
`
`Just a couple of preliminaries before we get started. First of all,
`thanks for your flexibility in conducting this video hearing. Our primary
`concern is that you have a right to be heard so if at any time you have any
`technical difficulties, please let us know immediately. You can contact the
`Board at the 571-272-9797 number or 571-272-6666. Second, please mute
`yourself if you’re not speaking. Third, just identify yourself at the beginning
`of your presentation and then fourth, finally we have all the slides. You can
`show us the slides if you want and we can follow along or you don’t have to
`show them to us. We have them all and we recognize Patent Owner
`submitted some revised slides, we have those.
`
`So with that, welcome everyone and can we just have appearances
`from both counsel, please? Why don’t we start with Petitioner.
`
`MR. JARRATT: Good morning, Your Honors. This is Scott Jarratt
`for Petitioner Apple and also joining is Calmann Clements, also representing
`Petitioner Apple.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Welcome Mr. Clements and Jarratt. Okay.
`And then what about Patent Owner?
`
`MR. COOPER: Good morning, Your Honors, co-counsel and
`opposing counsel. My name is Brett Cooper. It’s a pleasure to be here on
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`behalf of the respondent, Patent Owner Scramoge Technology Ltd., and my
`partner John Petrsoric is on the line as well. He’s going to be presenting for
`us.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay. Great. Welcome, Mr. Petrsoric and
`
`good morning, Mr. Cooper. So why don’t we start then. We’ll just get
`started here. We have Petitioner, you’ll have 60 minutes to present your
`case in chief followed by Patent Owner responding to that and then if you
`reserve any rebuttal time you’ll go on with that and then Patent Owner can
`provide a surrebuttal if they reserve time. So, Petitioner I guess, Mr. Jarratt,
`would you like to reserve any rebuttal time?
`
`MR. JERRATT: Yes, Your Honor. Fifteen minutes, please.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay. So, all right. With that, why don’t we
`get started.
`
`MR. PETRSORIC: Before we proceed, Your Honor, can I make one
`-- address one preliminary point?
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Hang on one second. Let me get my clock.
`Sure, go ahead.
`
`MR. PETRSORIC: We have maintained our objections with respect
`to the new evidence raised in reply. I don’t wish to interrupt Mr. Jarratt
`during his presentation but that we still maintain the objection.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay. We have that noted. That’s on the
`record and it’s in your surreply; right?
`
`MR. PETRSORIC: Correct.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Petrsoric. Yes we
`appreciate it. You could just raise that in your argument if you want also
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`again. But okay, so why don’t we get started. Again, Mr. Jarratt, please
`proceed. I’ll start -- give me one second to start this clock again. Okay.
`Please proceed.
`
`MR. JARRATT: All right. Let’s begin on slide 2, Your
`Honors. So, the ‘962 patent is all about wireless charging and it is focused
`on the receiving step such as a wireless powered receiver in a (audio
`interference) and on slide 2 you can see figure 5 of the ‘962 patent. It
`illustrates the various components of a wireless powered receiver that’s
`recited in the claims. You have a receiving coil in blue that’s embedded in a
`soft magnetic layer shown in green and additionally there is a double-sided
`adhesive layer between the coil and the magnetic layer and the only
`remaining issue with respect to independent claims is whether it was obvious
`to use this double-sided adhesive layer in this manner and as the record
`shows that not only was it obvious, but it was routine. The adhesive was
`actually sticking receiving coils to magnetic layers using double-sided tape
`before the ‘962 patent and that’s what makes this case a little bit different
`from most obviousness cases because no one needed to wrestle with the
`hypothetical of whether a POSITA would or would not use double-sided
`tape in this way. We know they did.
`Turning to slide 3. Ground 1 challenges claims 1, 18 and 19 over
`Suzuki and Lee and claims 1 and 18 are the independent claims.
`
`Moving to slide 4. So this is claim 1 of the ‘962 patent and it’s
`representative of claim 18 as well and as I mentioned the only disputed
`limitation in claim 1 is shown here and highlighted. It recites a multi-layer
`adhesive layer between the coil and the magnetic layer and the adhesive
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`layer has a first adhesive layer, an insulating layer and a second adhesive
`layer. The ‘962 specification refers to this multi-layer adhesive as double-
`sided. So, again, the only issue with respect to claim 1 is whether it would
`be obvious to use a double-sided adhesive to adhere a coil to a magnetic
`layer.
`
`So what does the prior art show? Turning to slide 5. So the primary
`reference is a combination of Suzuki and like the ‘962 patent it also
`describes a wireless powered receiver, the receiving coil that’s embedded in
`a soft magnetic layer and it also teaches that they use an adhesive or pressure
`sensitive adhesive to stick the coil to the magnetic layer.
`Turning to slide 6. You can see this disclosure in Suzuki. It says
`secondary coil 170 is then stuck on the magnetic layer with adhesive or
`pressure sensitive adhesive. So you have three things. You have the coil,
`you have the adhesive layer and you have the magnetic layer and the coil is
`stuck on with adhesive or pressure sensitive adhesive.
`Turning to slide 7.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Mr. Jarratt, let me ask you a question. We
`understand Patent Owner’s position is that this “stuck on” position you’re
`taking is not supported by the reference because the adhesive is within the
`magnetic layer itself in all their embodiments. So that’s one question.
`Assuming that’s not true or it is true, either way I think Patent
`Owner’s main point is that you haven’t shown any benefit here in
`substituting a double-sided tape for this adhesive. Can you address that at
`some point when you’re -- are you saying that you don’t need a benefit, that
`just because there’s a substitution that is a reason in and of itself or are 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
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`saying there is some benefit?
`MR. JARRATT: A couple of ways to answer your question. Yes,
`there are benefits but I think it would first help to back up a little bit and talk
`about Suzuki’s different methods of adhering the coil and if we turn to slide
`7 you’ll see that Suzuki does teach a couple of different methods. Beginning
`at the bottom of column 7 it says different methods of manufacturing the
`secondary coil block are explained, and the first method is the stuck on
`method. That’s the one we just talked about and they call it the stuck on
`method because it adheres the different layers with a separate layer adhesive
`and you can see that in this section. It says first the shield layer is stuck to
`one side of the magnetic layer with adhesive or pressure sensitive adhesive
`and then it says the secondary coil is then stuck on the other side of the
`magnetic layer with adhesive or pressure sensitive adhesive; right?
`And then there’s a second method here starting in green which says
`however not limited to this the magnetic layer may be formed of the above
`magnetic material and adhesive; right? So in this second method, yes, the
`magnetic layer can include the adhesive itself but that’s not the embodiment
`relied upon in the petition. It relies on this first stuck on method with a
`second separate adhesive layer. The petition consistently points to that.
`So turning to slide 8. When Suzuki says use a pressure sensitive
`adhesive to adhere the coil to the magnetic layer, what does that mean?
`Well, to a POSITA it essentially means use tape because tape is the
`quintessential pressure sensitive adhesive; right? It’s the oldest and most
`commonly known type of pressure sensitive adhesive, right, the major
`application area for all pressure sensitive adhesives and at the bottom it says
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`a pressure sensitive adhesive compositions using tape, particularly double-
`side tapes used to adhere two articles together and that’s the situation that we
`have here. We’re using a pressure sensitive adhesive to adhere a coil to a
`magnetic layer and it makes sense that it’s double-sided because you need it
`to be sticky on both sides. You have to adhere the coil to the magnetic layer.
`A single-sided tape wouldn’t. work So the record establishes that Suzuki by
`itself, the way that it’s used the pressure sensitive adhesive, which is tape, to
`adhere these layers.
`Moving to slide 9. And so Lee, the secondary reference, confirms that
`understanding. So Lee also describes a wireless powered receiver with a
`coil and a magnetic layer and it says use a double-sided tape to adhere these
`two and you can see Lee discloses the same structure as claimed in the
`patent. A first adhesive layer, insulating layer, and a second insulating layer
`just like the claims of the ‘962 patent.
`And turning to slide 10. So Lee wasn’t the only one to disclose using
`this double-sided tape in this way and Dr. Phinney in his declaration
`explained it is actually common and he gave several examples of this. In
`every example, you had a coil adhered to a magnetic layer using double-
`sided tape and the point of all this evidence is not only to show that a
`POSITA could make the combination, but POSITAs actually did make the
`combination and that’s an important distinction. It takes the evidence out of
`the hypothetical. We know POSITAs were making this combination. The
`evidence establishes that when a POSITA was faced with the decision of
`how to adhere a coil to a magnetic layer using pressure sensitive adhesive,
`they in fact chose to use double-sided tape and what could be more obvious
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`than doing something that’s already been done.
`JUDGE LEE: Mr. Jarratt, it’s Judge Lee. I have a question for you.
`You mentioned earlier that the double-sided tape or just tape is a form of
`pressure sensitive adhesive, so what are some of the other types of pressure
`sensitive adhesives?
`MR. JARRATT: I’m not an expert on pressure sensitive adhesives
`personally but the evidence establishes that the most common one was the
`tape, and it was a common application to use in the specific situation of
`adhering a coil to a magnetic layer and so --
`JUDGE LEE: Yes. But I’m just curious. Right now, I’m listening to
`you, so okay, are you saying when someone reads the term pressure
`sensitive adhesive a POSITA would just know the most common form of
`that is the tape? Is that what you’re saying?
`MR. JARRATT: Yes, Your Honor. So when a POSITA reads the
`words pressure sensitive adhesive, their background knowledge tells them
`that it’s the most common type -- that tape is the most common type of
`pressure sensitive adhesive. So --
`JUDGE LEE: So the record doesn’t have any other examples of
`pressure sensitive adhesive?
`MR. JARRATT: No, Your Honor, it doesn’t.
`JUDGE LEE: All right. Thank you.
`MR. JARRATT: All right. So turning to slide 11. So KSR (audio
`interference) --
`JUDGE MOORE: Can I ask you a question before you move on?
`MR. JARRATT: Sure.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`JUDGE MOORE: I’m looking at the excerpt you have on slide 7 with
`different methods and it appears to me that in each case it says that the
`adhesive or pressure sensitive adhesive is mixed with magnetic filler or
`magnetic powder so that the secondary coil block is obtained. Can you --
`how does that work with tape? Can you mix tape with filler or magnetic
`powder?
`MR. JARRATT: Yes, Your Honor, you can. So there’s something
`called magnetic tape and if we turn actually to slide 26 this is an issue that
`Patent Owner raised in their response. So in the reply we included evidence
`that, yes, there is such a thing as magnetic adhesive tape. It’s a mixture of
`magnetizable material with some sort of adhesive; right? And Exhibit 1031
`specifically refers to double-sided magnetic adhesive tape. We asked, Dr.
`Ricketts, Patent Owner’s expert during cross-examination,
`“Q Are you familiar with magnetic adhesive tape?”
`He said,
`“A
`I’m familiar with adhesive that’s mixed with magnetic powders
`so that the tape itself has magnetic properties.”
`So this would be useful in Suzuki because it adds additional
`magnetization between the coil and the magnetic layer; right? This
`magnetization is what helps guide the flux from the transmitting coil to the
`receiver coil to more efficiently transfer power.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. JARRATT: All right. So going back to slide 11. So an old
`combination of old elements is obvious; right? KSR, the Court in KSR said
`that’s actually the principal reason for the claim to allow the patent, right,
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`and the challenged claims are not a new combination of old elements. They
`don‘t recite a new way of attaching a coil to a magnetic layer. They simply
`recite the routine way of doing it and how can the claim that recites the
`routine way of doing something be patented.
`So turning to slide 12. Actually before we move on to slide 12, Judge
`Easthom, I wanted specifically to address your question about benefit to the
`combination and, yes, so not only had POSITAs done this actual
`combination so it wasn’t hypothetical, but there were good reasons to do it
`Some of the evidence we included in the petition was that the double-sided
`tape is configurable and so within that you can increase the thickness for
`specific applications or you can reduce the thickness for other applications.
`For example, if you needed a specific sized gap between the coil and the
`magnetic layer to customize the magnetic flux between the two, you can do
`that; right? You can make it thicker or thinner to change this gap and also if
`you need to increase adhesion you can make the double-sided tape thicker or
`thinner for a low profile. So this configurability was another one of the
`benefits that Dr. Phinney explained in his declaration.
`So moving on to slide 12. So one of Patent Owner’s arguments
`against the combination is that Suzuki would not include a double-sided tape
`in Suzuki because it includes this insulating layer and they would increase
`the thickness of Suzuki’s design and it would have all these different
`problems based on its increased thickness. So basically they’re, you know,
`they’re alleging that Suzuki would never include a insulating layer.
`If you turn to slide 13. Suzuki in fact does use an insulating layer in
`one embodiment. In figure 16 you have insulating thin film 175 between
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`magnetic layer in the coil and it actually says when you do this you use
`adhesive and insulating film and the effect (phonetic) that’s created, the
`magnetic layer, insulating layer, an adhesive and coil and that’s the same
`structure as proposed in the petition would if you used double-sided tape.
`Suzuki actually in this embodiment further confirms the case of obviousness
`in the petition.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Counsel, Mr. Jarratt? Just to highlight what
`Patent Owner said at the beginning of the hearing I think this is one of the
`things they say you impermissibly introduced late in the reply. You didn’t
`rely on this embodiment. Can you address that briefly please?
`MR. JARRATT: Sure, Your Honor The only reason figure 16 was
`included in the reply was to respond to Patent Owner’s argument that Suzuki
`would never use an insulating layer between the magnetic layer and the coil
`and so this evidence was introduced specifically to rebut that contention.
`Figure 16 is not relied upon for the main case of obviousness that’s laid out
`in the petition, Suzuki and Lee and the other evidence that Dr. Phinney cites
`to.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: But in your brief, I’m sorry to interrupt, but in
`your brief you say one of the advantages -- so you cite Suzuki as saying one
`of the advantages is that it keeps the magnetic material from sliding through
`the coil there. Is that a step too far? Can you introduce that as part of the
`reply brief? In other words, is that an added benefit that we have to consider
`or should we ignore that?
`MR. JARRATT: I think it further confirms the case; right? It is
`another benefit and in response to their argument that there is detriment to
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`including the thin film and we responded with, well, here’s an additional
`benefit to include an insulated thin so you could consider it as a further
`confirmation of the original case of obviousness. But at the end of the day
`it’s not needed. The original case is sufficient in the petition and the
`declaration.
`JUDGE LEE: Mr. Jarratt, it’s Judge Lee. It doesn’t seem to me like
`that’s proper responding situation, you just cite an additional benefit that you
`could have cited in your petition. If you can take that logic you can
`essentially put in anything you want in the reply and say it’s in response.
`The response says, oh, you didn’t make out a prima facie case or you never
`mentioned a benefit and you could say, well, I’m just responding to the
`response by pointing out a benefit. So I’m not sure I understand what you’re
`saying that the reason you put in an additional benefit in the reply is properly
`in response to the Patent Owner response. It seems to me like you should be
`limited to the benefits you articulate in the petition and if that’s not true, tell
`me why not.
`MR. JARRATT: You know, the point of the reply is to respond to the
`arguments that Patent Owner made and their argument was there’s always
`detriment for including this by itself; right? They left no room for any
`advantages and so the point of including that benefit was to show that
`Suzuki itself, the primary reference, included a benefit.
`JUDGE LEE: Yes, yes, I understand but you should have pointed out
`the benefit at the beginning because you have to show that anyway. If
`there’s no benefit for doing -- do you know case law that says you can’t just
`make a modification without any benefit just because it could be done?
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`MR. JARRATT: Well, I’d say there was benefits cited in the original
`petition and this is --
`JUDGE LEE: Exactly. I’m trying to figure out whether you can. We
`should consider the additional benefit you mentioned in the reply and so far
`I’m just questioning your reasoning. You say, oh, you’re just responding to
`the response by naming an additional benefit. You already have a response;
`right? If your petition already named a benefit, you could just say, well, we
`already named a benefit in the petition so the Patent Owner’s response is no
`good.
`
`MR. JARRATT: Well, again I think it’s Petitioner’s position that we
`were in fact responding with this additional benefit because they claimed
`there was no benefits whatsoever to the (indiscernible). You go right to the
`Belden, Inc. v. Berk-Tec, LLC Federal Circuit case that says a trial will often
`confirm the original prima facie case’s evidence with additional evidence
`and that’s what we were attempting to do in the reply, Your Honor.
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. JARRATT: All right. So turning to slide 14. So at the end of
`the day claims 1, 18 and 19 are obvious because the only issue in dispute is
`whether it was obvious to use double-sided tape between the coil and a
`magnet layer and the overwhelming evidence shows that it indeed was
`obvious.
`Moving to slide 15. So the second ground in the petition challenged
`claims 2 through 4 and 7 over Suzuki bringing in a third reference, Sawa and
`if we turn to slide 16 we’ll see claim 2 here. It recites where the soft
`magnetic layer of claim 1 further includes a iron silicon-based alloy.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`Turning to slide 17. This is figure 3 of Suzuki again and again it
`includes the soft magnetic layer and it describes the composition of this
`magnetic layer very generically; right? You see column 10 it says, for
`example,
`“Any soft magnetic material made of crystalline metal material or
`non-crystalline metal material.”
`So basically any metal material that’s a soft magnetic material for. If
`we turn to slide 18. Suzuki actually gives a number of examples; right? It
`says it can be a nickel ferrite sheet. However, not limited to this the
`magnetic material may be a sheet made of manganese ferrite, amorphous
`magnetic alloy, iron nickel alloy or the like and so Suzuki is clear that it’s
`open ended; right? These are just examples of potential materials that could
`be used for the magnetic layer and in the words “or the like in” indicates to
`the POSITA is that no one can use these examples but you use examples like
`these and so, for example, this encourages a POSITA to seek out other
`materials that are like iron nickel alloy.
`If we turn to slide 19. The secondary reference is Sawa and it does in
`fact illustrate that iron silicon, what’s in the claim, is like iron nickel for this
`application and it’s important to remember that Sawa, like Suzuki, is also a
`wireless powered receiver that includes a coil, includes a magnetic layer and
`the magnetic layer is used for the same purpose; right? It’s to guide flux
`through the receiving coil to make power transferring more efficient. So it’s
`the same application in Sawa as Suzuki and Sawa says you can use a number
`of iron alloys, iron chromium, iron nickel, iron silicon and the like. So Sawa
`is saying for this application , you know, all of these iron alloys are like each
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`other. So the iron silicon in this list is one of the materials contemplated by
`the primary reference (indiscernible).
`Moving on to slide 20. And another thing Sawa tells us is that a
`POSITA was capable of adjusting the magnetic characteristics of this
`magnetic layer for the particular application. For example, by adjusting the
`composition ratio you could change the magnetic permeability,
`magnetostriction constant and magnetic flux density, et cetera.
`So turning to slide 21. So Patent Owner’s main argument against this
`combination was that it’s based on something called magnetostriction and
`this is simply the amount a material expands or contracts when it’s
`magnetized and they claim that a POSITA would never have used any of
`Sawa’s listed materials in Suzuki because Sawa’s magnetic thin plates for
`the magnetostriction constant exceeding 5 ppm and they realize that it’s hot
`(phonetic) and so essentially they’re saying you would never have used any
`of Sawa’s materials and there’s two problems with that.
`The first is that, turning to slide 22 is that Suzuki does actually use
`one of Sawa’s materials. As you can see on this slide they both used iron
`nickel alloy. So it’s not the case that Suzuki would never use any of Sawa’s
`materials.
`Turning to slide 23. Another problem with the Patent Owner’s
`argument is that Sawa specifically says a POSITA in the art knew how to
`change the magnetostriction constant and it gives examples specifically of
`the claimed iron silicon. It says a POSITA can change the magnetostriction
`constant, such that it becomes small. So even if a high magnetostriction
`constant was a problem in Suzuki, a POSITA knew how to change it so it
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`was not a problem so it (indiscernible).
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Counsel, similar question to the other ground
`here. Patent Owner argues you show no benefit. Can you address what --
`do you need a benefit? Is it enough to say that there was another available
`material or under KSR do you need an extra benefit here, some type of
`reason? Is the reason just because there’s something else you can use or do
`you have to show a benefit and did you show a benefit?
`MR. JARRATT: Yes, Your Honor. So my answer is yes actually to
`all your questions. So first, the purpose of working for a benefit is to work
`with motivation; right? What would motivate a POSITA to make the
`combination; right? Suzuki itself says for this magnetic layer use the
`examples or ones like them. So if Suzuki itself is motivating a POSITA to
`look for materials that are like these in this application, Suzuki says in this
`application here these iron alloys work in this application and so Suzuki
`itself has motivation to seek out additional material.
`Beyond that, there are benefits that we put in the petition and
`declaration. First is that when you use iron silicon it can easily be rolled to
`adjust for plate thickness and additionally, as we just discussed,
`magnetostriction constant and other magnetic characteristics can be changed
`and adjusted as needed. So iron silicon can be adjusted as needed for the
`particular application and that’s a benefit.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Can I -- so can I interject here then? I think
`your friend’s response is that, well, that’s not a benefit. The first one, the
`rolling isn’t a benefit because iron nickel was already easily rollable and I
`didn’t see you mention that you could adjust the magnetostriction constant
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`by adjusting the ratio of Fe-Si in the petition. Am I mistaken on that?
`MR. JARRATT: I don’t believe that particular point was in the
`petition. But to your broader question whether this benefit over iron nickel,
`and the test for obviousness is not what is the best material; right? It’s just
`which materials would be obvious; right? Suzuki says you can use iron
`nickel or you can use other ones like iron nickel; right? If they all have
`advantages, if they’re easily rolled out for a specific plate thickness they all
`would be obvious for use in this application.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay. So basically I think what you’re saying
`-- what I hear you saying is that under KSR or other case law it’s because
`somebody’s pointing you and saying these are substitutes and that’s all you
`need to show, that they achieve the same function and they have the same --
`they all have the same properties and the same benefits so that’s all you need
`to show?
`MR. JARRATT: Well, KSR says that if you have old materials used
`in the same way in a predictable way, a predictable result, that is a sufficient
`basis for obviousness and in this case these specific iron alloys listed by
`Sawa additionally have this adjustable characteristic. That’s an additional
`benefit over just using them as they’re in their predictable way. We believe
`that is sufficient to make a case of obviousness, Your Honor.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Thank you. I don’t have any other questions. I
`don’t know if you were -- you’re up to almost 29 minutes so you have a lot
`of time.
`JUDGE LEE: Yes. One more question. Mr. Jarratt, I know you
`explained this before when Judge Moore asked you, but I’ve thinking about
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`it and I didn’t quite get it. If you don’t mind can you go back, I want to ask
`the same question. Let’s go back to your slide 5 where you say Suzuki
`teaches a coil embedded and adhered to a magnetic layer and slide 6 which
`explains that the coil is then stuck on the magnetic layer with adhesive or
`pressure sensitive adhesive which is mixed with magnetic filler and Judge
`Moore asked you, well, how do you -- when you say a pressure sensitive
`adhesive is commonly a tape -- and you were asked, well, how does one mix
`tape with magnetic filler and you gave an explanation but I didn’t follow it.
`Can you explain it again? In my mind tape is tape and filler is filler.
`How do you mix it together and how do you actually -- I can’t envision that
`kind of a mixed tape and filler in the slide 5 figure. Can you explain with
`reference to your slide 5 and show me how you’re going to get tape there
`mixed with magnetic filler to connect the coil with the, you know, with the
`magnetic layer. What would the tape be?
`MR. JARRATT: Yes, Your Honor. So the tape, the magnetized tape
`is mixed during manufacture; all right? And then --
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. How would it appear in your slide 5 relative to
`the coil?
`MR. JARRATT: We actually had this annotation in the petition I
`believe on -- Dr. Phinney annotated figure 3 in Suzuki to show this. That I
`believe is on page 38 of the petition.
`JUDGE LEE: Let me get there. Whoops, have a computer freeze
`here. Okay. Go ahead.
`MR. JARRATT: Yes. So we asked Dr. Phinney to annotate what the
`figure in Suzuki would look like with a double-sided tape as shown by Lee
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00120
`Patent 9,997,962 B2
`and he annotated as shown on page 38 of the petition. So, and this
`corresponds to all of the other examples in the art of using a double-sided
`tape to adhere a coil to the magnetic layer; right? So we weren’t the first
`ones to come up with this. This is a known thing of using a double-sided
`tape and when Suzuki says use a pressure sensitive adhesive, you know, it
`doesn’t give any structure or it doesn’t say what kind of pressure sensitive
`adhesive and so it just says use one with magnetic filler.
`JUDGE LEE: Yes, I did. I’m at 38 of the petition. Can you explain
`to me where is the tape that sticks the coil to the magnetic layer? How does
`it do that
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
