Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and GOOGLE LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 9,997,962
`
`______________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GARY WOODS
`
`i
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0001
`
`
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and GOOGLE LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 9,997,962
`
`______________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GARY WOODS
`
`i
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0001
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`I, Gary Woods, hereby declare as follows.
`
`Introduction
`1.
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Google LLC,
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) for the above-captioned inter partes review (IPR). I understand that
`
`Petitioner challenges the validity of Claims 1-8 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,997,962.
`
`2.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen (18) and otherwise competent to make
`
`this declaration. I am being compensated for my time in connection with this IPR
`
`at my standard consulting rate.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the petition for inter partes review involves U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,997,962 (the “’962 Patent”), Ex-10011, which resulted from U.S.
`
`Application No. 14/901,426 (the “’426 Application”). I understand that the ’426
`
`Application is a national stage application corresponding to PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/KR2014/005258 (the “’258 PCT Application”). The ’258 PCT Application
`
`was filed on June 16, 2014. The ’962 Patent claims priority to Korean Patent
`
`Application No. 10-2013-0074620, filed on June 27, 2013, and names Seok Bae,
`
`
`1 All exhibit citations refer to the exhibits attached to Samsung’s Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962, filed concurrently herewith.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0002
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`Donchul Choi, and Soon Young Hyun as the inventors. See Ex-1001 at Cover. The
`
`’962 Patent issued on June 12, 2018, from the ’426 application. I further
`
`understand that, according to USPTO records, the ’962 Patent is currently assigned
`
`to Scramoge Technology Limited (“Patent Owner” or “Scramoge”).
`
`4.
`
`I understand that Scramoge has claimed priority to June 27, 2013, in
`
`its Preliminary Infringement Contentions. See Ex-1008.
`
`5.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’962 Patent and
`
`considered each of the documents cited herein, in light of general knowledge in the
`
`art. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my experience in the relevant
`
`art and have also considered the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`6.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue as of the June 27, 2013, the
`
`earliest claimed priority date of the ’962 Patent. I am also familiar with a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art with respect to the technology at issue as of the June 27,
`
`2013 earliest claimed priority date of the ’962 Patent.
`
`II. My background and qualifications
`7.
`Since 2008, I have been employed as a Professor in the Practice in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Rice University in Houston,
`
`Texas. Since 2020, my title has been Distinguished Professor in the Practice.
`
`Before that, I worked as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, Santa
`
`Barbara (1996-1998); at Intel Corporation (1998-2000); at Spectralane Inc. (2000-
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0003
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`2002); at Optonics (later Credence Systems Corp.) (2003-2006); and as an
`
`independent consultant (2006-present). In the summers of 1988 and 1989 I worked
`
`at Texas Instruments.
`
`8. My educational background includes undergraduate degrees in
`
`Physics and Electrical Engineering from Rice University in 1988 and an MS
`
`(1991) and Ph.D. (1997) in Applied Physics from Stanford University.
`
`9.
`
`I am familiar with patents both as an inventor and as chief technology
`
`officer in charge of the patent portfolio of a company I co-founded, Spectralane. I
`
`am an inventor on 16 issued and one pending US utility patents. These patents deal
`
`with otpo-electronics, integrated circuits, signal processing, and
`
`telecommunications.
`
`10. With regard to wireless charging and wireless communication
`
`specifically, I have worked on a number of design projects at Rice in this field.
`
`Many of them were year-long capstone design projects, where I was the technical
`
`mentor on the project. Before the priority date, I have worked on projects involving
`
`wireless power delivery such as transcutaneous charging of biomedical implants,
`
`wirelessly powering a CO2 sensor for the International Space Station, using RFID
`
`to track bikers in a relay race, and treating cancer with microwave-absorbing
`
`implants. Projects with a significant charging but not wireless aspect include
`
`charging cellphones with supercapacitors and with human-powered generators, and
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0004
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`harvesting energy from a shock absorber. I have supervised numerous projects
`
`involving significant wireless networking aspects, including antenna design,
`
`covering protocols including Bluetooth, WiFi, ZigBee, and Bluetooth Low Energy.
`
`11. After the priority date I have continued working in the wireless space.
`
`I have supervised a number of capstone projects involving significant wireless
`
`aspects, including wirelessly powering a multi-element pacemaker; an 11 GHz
`
`real-time 4x4 imaging radar array; sending video over cellphone links for
`
`ambulance telemedicine; ultra-low power wireless EEG transmission; several off-
`
`grid internet-of-things (IOT) systems, and several wirelessly transmitting medical
`
`devices.
`
`12. Outside of capstone projects, I have been involved in research
`
`activities related to this case including developing an experimental setup with the
`
`highest magnetic field in Texas, developing a solar-powered, IOT flood-sensor
`
`network for Houston, and developing a terahertz generation and detection system.
`
`13.
`
`In my educational activities, I regularly teach a laboratory course that
`
`includes a final project of building and testing a near-field communication system.
`
`I have also developed educational demonstrations for classroom use involving
`
`original “crystal” AM radios based on homemade cuprous-oxide rectifiers.
`
`14.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training,
`
`knowledge, and experience in the relevant art. A copy of my current curriculum
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0005
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`vitae is provided as Ex-1003, and it provides a comprehensive description of my
`
`academic, employment, research, and professional history.
`
`15. With my extensive experience in the field of wireless charging and
`
`wireless communication systems, I am qualified to provide an opinion as to what a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, known, or concluded as
`
`of June 27, 2013. I have been asked to opine on the state of the art as of June 27,
`
`2013, which I understand is the earliest claimed priority date of the ’962 Patent.
`
`III. List of Documents Considered in Formulating My Opinions
`16.
`In formulating my opinions, I have considered the Exhibits to the ’962
`
`IPR Petition and all documents cited in this declaration.
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards
`17.
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law was provided to me by Petitioner’s attorneys. Counsel has
`
`provided me with various legal standards that I understand apply to my analysis.
`
`A.
`18.
`
`Prior Art and Anticipation
`I understand that the petitioner for inter partes review may request the
`
`cancelation of one or more claims of a patent based on grounds available under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 using prior art that consists of patents and
`
`printed publications.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0006
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`I understand that § 102 specifies when a challenged claim is invalid
`
`19.
`
`for lacking novelty over the prior art, and that this concept is also known as
`
`“anticipation.” I understand that a prior art reference anticipates a challenged
`
`claim, and thus renders it invalid by anticipation, if all elements of the challenged
`
`claim are disclosed in the prior art reference. I understand the disclosure in the
`
`prior art reference can be either explicit or inherent, meaning it is necessarily
`
`present or implied. I understand that the prior art reference does not have to use the
`
`same words as the challenged claim, but all of the requirements of the claim must
`
`be disclosed so that a person of ordinary skill in the art could make and use the
`
`claimed subject-matter.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that § 102 also defines what is available for use as a prior
`
`art reference to a challenged claim. Under § 102(a)(1), a challenged claim is
`
`anticipated if it was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
`
`on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention. Under § 102(a)(2), I understand a challenged claim is
`
`anticipated if it was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
`
`application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in
`
`which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and
`
`was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0007
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`I understand that a challenged claim’s date of invention is presumed
`
`21.
`
`to be the challenged patent’s filing date.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the filing date of patent is generally the filing date of
`
`the application filed in the United States that issued as the patent. However, I
`
`understand that a patent may be granted an earlier effective filing date if the patent
`
`owner properly claimed priority to an earlier patent application.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that when a challenged claim covers several structures,
`
`either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the
`
`structures within the scope of the claim is found in the prior art reference.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that when a challenged claim requires selection of an
`
`element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the
`
`alternatives is taught by the prior art.
`
`B. Obviousness
`25.
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if it would have been obvious
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the alleged invention was made,
`
`even if that claim is not anticipated. I understand that a claim could have been
`
`obvious from a single prior art reference or from a combination of two or more
`
`prior art references.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0008
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`27.
`
`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,
`
`that is, 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.
`
`28.
`
`I further understand that a claim would have been obvious if it unites
`
`old elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by
`
`mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, and that
`
`combination yields predictable results. Also, I understand that obviousness does
`
`not require physical combination/bodily incorporation, but rather consideration of
`
`what the combined teachings would have suggested to persons of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0009
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`29. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this combination, I
`
`understand that there is no rigid requirement of finding an express teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine within the references. When a product is
`
`available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
`
`either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can
`
`implement a predictable variation, obviousness likely bars its patentability. For the
`
`same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device and a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in
`
`the same way, using the technique would have been obvious. I understand that a
`
`claim would have been obvious if a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had reason to combine multiple prior art references or add missing features to
`
`reproduce the alleged invention recited in the claims.
`
`30.
`
`I am not aware of any allegations by the named inventors of the ’962
`
`Patent or any assignee of the ’962 Patent that any secondary considerations tend to
`
`rebut the obviousness of any claim of the ’962 Patent discussed in this declaration.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`32. The analysis in this declaration is in accordance with the above-stated
`
`legal principles.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0010
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`
`C.
`33.
`
`Claim Construction
`I understand that a patent may include two types of claims,
`
`independent claims and dependent claims. I understand that an independent claim
`
`stands alone and includes only the limitations it recites. I understand that a
`
`dependent claim depends from an independent claim or another dependent claim. I
`
`understand that a dependent claim includes all the limitations that it recites in
`
`addition to the limitations recited in the claim (or claims) from which it depends.
`
`34.
`
`In comparing the challenged claims to the prior art, I have carefully
`
`considered the patent and its file history in light of the understanding of a person of
`
`skill at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that to determine how a person of ordinary skill would
`
`have understood a claim term, one should look to sources available at the time of
`
`the alleged invention that show what a person of skill in the art would have
`
`understood disputed claim language to mean. It is my understanding that this may
`
`include what is called “intrinsic” evidence as well as “extrinsic” evidence.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that, in construing a claim term, one should primarily
`
`rely on intrinsic patent evidence, which includes the words of the claims
`
`themselves, the remainder of the patent specification, and the prosecution history. I
`
`understand that extrinsic evidence, which is evidence external to the patent and the
`
`prosecution history, may also be useful in interpreting patent claims when the
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0011
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`intrinsic evidence itself is insufficient. I understand that extrinsic evidence may
`
`include principles, concepts, terms, and other resources available to those of skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that words or terms should be given their ordinary and
`
`accepted meaning unless it appears that the inventors were using them to mean
`
`something else or something more specific. I understand that to determine whether
`
`a term has special meaning, the claims, the patent specification, and the
`
`prosecution history are particularly important, and may show that the inventor gave
`
`a term a particular definition or intentionally disclaimed, disavowed, or
`
`surrendered claim scope.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that the claims of a patent define the scope of the rights
`
`conferred by the patent. I understand that because the claims point out and
`
`distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as their invention,
`
`claim construction analysis must begin with and is focused on the claim language
`
`itself. I understand that the context of the term within the claim as well as other
`
`claims of the patent can inform the meaning of a claim term. For example, because
`
`claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, how a term is
`
`used in one claim can often inform the meaning of the same term in other claims.
`
`Differences among claims or claim terms can also be a useful guide in
`
`understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0012
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`I understand that a claim term should be construed not only in the
`
`39.
`
`context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the
`
`context of the entire patent, including the entire specification. I understand that
`
`because the specification is a primary basis for construing the claims, a correct
`
`construction must align with the specification.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history of the patent as well as art
`
`incorporated by reference or otherwise cited during the prosecution history are also
`
`highly relevant in construing claim terms. For instance, art cited by or incorporated
`
`by reference may indicate how the inventor and others of skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention understood certain terms and concepts. Additionally, the
`
`prosecution history may show that the inventors disclaimed or disavowed claim
`
`scope, or further explained the meaning of a claim term.
`
`41. With regard to extrinsic evidence, I understand that all evidence
`
`external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor
`
`testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, can also be considered. For example,
`
`technical dictionaries may indicate how one of skill in the art used or understood
`
`the claim terms. However, I understand that extrinsic evidence is considered to be
`
`less reliable than intrinsic evidence, and for that reason is generally given less
`
`weight than intrinsic evidence.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0013
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`I understand that in general, a term or phrase found in the introductory
`
`42.
`
`words or preamble of the claim, should be construed as a limitation if it recites
`
`essential structure or steps, or is necessary to give meaning to the claim. For
`
`instance, I understand preamble language may limit claim scope: (i) if dependence
`
`on a preamble phrase for antecedent basis indicates a reliance on both the preamble
`
`and claim body to define the claimed invention; (ii) if reference to the preamble is
`
`necessary to understand limitations or terms in the claim body; or (iii) if the
`
`preamble recites additional structure or steps that the specification identifies as
`
`important.
`
`43. On the other hand, I understand that a preamble term or phrase is not
`
`limiting where a challenged claim defines a structurally complete invention in the
`
`claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the
`
`invention. I understand that to make this determination, one should review the
`
`entire patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors claim they invented
`
`and intended to encompass in the claims.
`
`44.
`
`I understand that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 created an exception to the
`
`general rule of claim construction called a “means plus function” limitation. These
`
`types of terms and limitations should be interpreted to cover only the
`
`corresponding structure described in the specification, and equivalents thereof. I
`
`also understand that a limitation is presumed to be a means plus function limitation
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0014
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`if (a) the claim limitation uses the phrase “means for”; (b) the “means for” is
`
`modified by functional language; and (c) the phrase “means for” is not modified by
`
`sufficient structure for achieving the specified function.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that a structure is considered structurally equivalent to
`
`the corresponding structure identified in the specification only if the difference
`
`between them are insubstantial. For instance, if the structure performs the same
`
`function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. I
`
`further understand that a structural equivalent must have been available at the time
`
`of the issuance of the claim.
`
`V. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`46.
`I understand that factors that may be considered in establishing the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the patent-in-suit include the type of
`
`problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made, sophistication of the technology, and educational
`
`level of active workers in the field.
`
`47.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) is
`
`one who is presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, thinks along conventional
`
`wisdom in the art, and is a person of ordinary creativity. A POSITA would have
`
`had knowledge of wireless charging systems and related technologies as of June
`
`27, 2013.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0015
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`48. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, applied physics, or a related field,
`
`and at least one year of experience in the research, design, development, and/or
`
`testing of wireless charging systems, or the equivalent, with additional education
`
`substituting for experience and vice versa.
`
`49. Based on my education and experience, I would have easily exceeded
`
`the criteria for a POSITA in June 27, 2013, and I still exceed it today.
`
`VI. Overview of the ’962 Patent
`50. The ’962 Patent, titled “Receiving Antenna and Wireless Power
`
`Receiving Device Including the Same,” is directed to “[a] receiving antenna for
`
`wireless charging . . . .” Ex-1001 at Abstract. As shown in annotated Figure 5
`
`below, the ’962 Patent describes a receiving antenna that includes a “substrate,”
`
`“soft magnetic layer 500,” “adhesive layer 510,” “receiving coil 520” disposed on
`
`the adhesive layer, and “support means 530.” Id. at 6:8-16, Fig. 5.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0016
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 5 (annotated).
`
`51. The soft magnetic layer “may be in the form in which a plurality of
`
`sheets including a single metal or an alloy” are “stacked.” Id. at 5:19-26. As
`
`illustrated in Figure 5 above, the receiving coil 520 may be “embedded inside of
`
`the soft magnetic layer 500 . . . .” Id. at 6:28-32. The ’962 Patent also discloses that
`
`the adhesive layer 510 may have a “first adhesive layer 512, an insulating layer
`
`514 formed on the first adhesive layer 512, and a second adhesive layer 516
`
`formed on the insulating layer 514,” as illustrated in annotated Figure 6 below. Id.
`
`at 6:37-45, Fig. 6. The insulating layer 514 may include a “polyethylene
`
`terephthalate (PET) material” or a polyimide. Id. at 6:46-47, Cl. 6.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0017
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`
`Id. at Fig. 6 (annotated).
`
`52. The wireless power receiving device may also include an “NFC coil
`
`230” that may be “formed to surround an outer portion of the receiving coil 220,”
`
`as illustrated in annotated Figure 3 below. Id. at 5:50-54, Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0018
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3 (annotated).
`
`53. For the reasons set forth below, however, it is my opinion that the
`
`claims of the ’962 Patent are directed to predictable combinations of well-known
`
`prior art elements in wireless charging as reflected, for example, in Claim 1.
`
`A wireless power receiving antenna comprising:
`a substrate;
`a soft magnetic layer comprising a first magnetic sheet disposed on the
`substrate and a second magnetic sheet disposed on the first magnetic
`sheet;
`an adhesive layer formed between the second magnetic sheet and the
`receiving coil,
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0019
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`wherein the adhesive layer includes a first adhesive layer in contact with the
`second magnetic sheet, a second adhesive layer in contact with the
`receiving coil, and an insulating layer disposed between the first
`adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer, and
`a receiving coil disposed on the second magnetic sheet; and
`wherein a height of a highest position of the second magnetic sheet from the
`substrate is higher than a height of a lowest position of the receiving
`coil from the substrate.
`
` As described in Claim 1, the claimed wireless power receiving
`
`54.
`
`antenna is straightforward. It includes a substrate, a soft magnetic layer comprised
`
`of two magnetic sheets, a three-layered adhesive layer, and a receiving coil
`
`embedded in the second magnetic sheet. Independent Claim 18 is substantially the
`
`same, and the dependent claims simply add minor functional or structural
`
`variations. As explained in detail below, it is my opinion that the ’962 Patent’s
`
`claims would have been obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`VII. Prosecution History Of The ’962 Patent
`55.
`I understand the application leading to the ’962 Patent, U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 14/901,426 is a national-stage application corresponding to PCT
`
`Application No. PCT/KR2014/005258, which was filed on June 16, 2014. The
`
`’962 Patent claims priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2013-0074620,
`
`filed on June 27, 2013.
`
`56. On September 22, 2017, the examiner issued a final rejection, stating
`
`that pending Claims 1, 7-8, and 13 were rejected as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`
`
`19
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0020
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`102(a)(1)-(a)(2) by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0069444A1 to
`
`Waffenschmidt et al. (“Waffenschmidt”). Ex-1004 at 454-456. The examiner also
`
`rejected Claims 3-4, 14-16, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
`
`Waffenschmidt and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0121677 to
`
`Inoue et al. (“Inoue”). Id
`
`57. The examiner stated that Waffenschmidt discloses all limitations
`
`except for “the soft magnetic layer including a soft magnetic metal powder” and
`
`“wherein the insulating layer includes is [sic] a film including a polyethylene
`
`terephthalate (PET) material.” Id. at 455-458. The examiner stated that it would
`
`have been obvious to a POSITA “to include a soft magnetic powder and a polymer
`
`resin, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to
`
`select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a
`
`matter of obvious design choice.” Id. at 457.
`
`58. The examiner also held that “an insulating layer is a film including a
`
`polyethylene terephthalate (PET) material” and that such an insulating layer would
`
`have been obvious to a POSITA for similar reasons. Id. at 458.
`
`59. On December 19, 2017, the Applicant filed an amendment amending
`
`independent Claims 1, 9, and 13, and adding new Claims 23-38. Id. at 480. The
`
`Applicant added multiple new limitations to the independent claims, including “a
`
`soft magnetic layer comprising a first magnetic sheet disposed on the substrate and
`
`
`
`20
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0021
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`a second magnetic sheet disposed on the first magnetic sheet,” “wherein the
`
`adhesive layer includes a first adhesive layer in contact with the second magnetic
`
`sheet, a second adhesive layer in contact with the receiving coil, and an insulating
`
`layer disposed between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer,” and
`
`“wherein a height of a highest position of the second magnetic sheet from the
`
`substrate is higher than a height of a lowest position of the receiving coil from the
`
`substrate.” Id. at 473-476.
`
`60. On February 15, 2018, the examiner allowed all claims, finding that
`
`the Applicant’s amendment overcame the prior art rejection. Id. at 788.
`
`VIII.
`
` Priority Date Of The ’962 Patent
`
`61.
`
`I understand that Petitioner takes no position on the proper priority
`
`date of the ’962 Patent. In the concurrent litigation, Patent Owner claims priority to
`
`the earliest possible priority date for the ’962 Patent, June 27, 2013. Ex-1008 at 5.
`
`Thus, for the purposes of this Declaration, I have assumed the priority date of the
`
`’962 Patent is June 27, 2013.
`
`IX. Claim Construction Of Challenged Claims
`62.
`I do not believe that any term requires explicit construction to resolve
`
`the issues presented in this Petition. I ascribe the plain meaning to each claim term,
`
`as that plain meaning would have been understood by a POSITA. I note that
`
`dependent Claim 3 recites the wireless power receiving antenna of Claim 2,
`
`
`
`21
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1002, 0022
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962
`Declaration of Gary Woods
`“further comprising a support means stacked on the receiving coil.” In my opinion,
`
`a POSITA would have understood the plain meaning of the “support means” in
`
`light of the claim language and specification as a structure that provides support to
`
`the receiving coil. See, e.g., Claim 3, Ex-1001, 6:14-17. I address this
`
`interpretation of the “support means” under Grounds 1-4. See, e.g., Sections
`
`X.C.3.b. As I discuss below under Ground 5, I have also been asked to consider the
`
`scenario where the recited “support means” is interpreted to have a structure of “a
`
`film-like layer, such as a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) layer,” and a function
`
`“to support the receiving coil,” as described in the specification. See, e.g., Section
`
`X.G.3.b. The ’962 Patent explains that “a support means 530 is formed on the
`
`receiving coil 520.” Ex-1001, 6:14-15. The “support means 530 supports the
`
`receiving coil 520,” and “may include a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) material,
`
`and may have the form of a film.” Id., 6:16-17. Accordingly, I address this
`
`alternative interpretation of the “support means” in Section X.G.3.b.
`
`63.
`
`I reserve the right to offer opinions on any claim constructions
`
`proposed in this proceeding or to offer opinions on additional constructions in the
`
`district court.
`
`X. Grounds for Finding the Challenged Claims Invalid
`64.
`I understand that Petitioner is challenging the validity of Claims 1-8
`
`and
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
