`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00350
`Patent 9,806,565
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`Table of Contents
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. The Petition Relies on the Same Structure in Hong for the “Receiving
`Space” and the “Connecting Unit” .................................................................... 2
`A. Hong’s Disclosure Of A Substrate Containing A Wiring Layer ................... 2
`B. Hong Does Not Disclose A “Receiving Space” In Which A Separate
`And Distinct “Connecting Unit” Is Disposed ............................................... 8
`C. Patent Owner’s Arguments Do Not Convert The Challenged
`Apparatus Claims To Process Claims ........................................................ 11
`III. Hong Does Not Teach The “Connecting Unit” As Separable From The
`“Receiving Space” ........................................................................................... 13
`
`IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`Cases
`3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 12
`
`Hazani v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n,
`126 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................... 12
`
`In re Moore,
`58 CCPA 1042, 439 F.2d 1232 (1971) ............................................................... 12
`
`Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp.,
`717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................. 12
`
`Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00624, Paper No. 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) ..... 9-10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`Exhibit No. Description
`2001
`Notice of IPR Petitions, Scramoge Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00579-ADA, Dkt. No. 35 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 11,
`2021)
`Scheduling Order, Scramoge Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-00579-ADA, Dkt. No. 33 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2021)
`Law360 Article: West Texas Judge Says He Can Move Faster
`Than PTAB
`Text Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending IPR, Solas OLED
`Ltd. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-00515-ADA (W.D. Tex.
`June 23, 2020)
`Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending IPR, Multimedia Content
`Management LLC v. DISH Network L.L.C., Case No. 6:18-cv-
`00207-ADA, Dkt. No. 73 (W.D. Tex. May 30, 2019)
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`Scheduling Order, Correct Transmission LLC v. Adtran, Inc.,
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00669-ADA, Dkt. No. 34 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 10,
`2020)
`
`Scheduling Order, Maxell Ltd. v. Amperex Technology Ltd., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-00347-ADA, Dkt. No. 37 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2021)
`
`Standing Order Governing Proceedings in Patent Cases, Judge
`Alan D. Albright
`
`Claim Construction Order, Solas OLED Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case
`No. 6:19-cv-00537-ADA, Dkt. No. 61 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2020)
`
`Plaintiff Scramoge Technology Ltd.’s Amended Preliminary
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions to
`Apple Inc. in Scramoge Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No.
`6:21-cv-00579-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s First Amended Preliminary Invalidity
`Contentions in Scramoge Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No.
`6:21-cv-00579-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Android Authority article: LG Innotek’s Latest wireless charger is
`Three times faster
`
`Scheduling Order, Scramoge Technology Ltd. v. Google LLC,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00616-ADA, Dkt. No. 28 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 15,
`2021)
`
`Defendants’ Joint Reply Claim Construction Brief in Scramoge
`Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-00579-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.)
`
`Scheduling Order, Scramoge Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-00579-ADA, Dkt. No. 56 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2022)
`
`Declaration of John Petrsoric in Support of Motion for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice
`
`November 1, 2022 Deposition Transcript of Joshua Phinney,
`Ph.D.
`
`2018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,674,610
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`Introduction
`Patent Owner Scramoge Technology Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) submits this sur-
`
`reply in response to Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (“Reply”) with
`
`respect to the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,806,565 (“the ’565 Patent”).
`
`The challenged claims of the ’565 patent require a “substrate comprising a
`
`receiving space of a predetermined shape formed therein” that is a separate and
`
`distinct component from the “connecting unit” that is to be “disposed in the receiving
`
`space.” Petitioner does not assert otherwise. Petitioner contends that is has pointed
`
`to separate and distinct components for these limitations in the Hong reference. This
`
`is demonstrably false—Petitioner points to the wiring layer 27 in Hong for both the
`
`“substrate comprising a receiving space” and “connecting unit” limitations.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on the same component to satisfy both the “substrate
`
`comprising a receiving space” that is separate and distinct from the recited
`
`“connecting unit” cannot be correct because the ’565 Patent claims require that they
`
`be
`
`two separate components.
`
` Consequently, Petitioner’s arguments of
`
`unpatentability based on Hong cannot be correct. The Board should find the
`
`challenged claims not unpatentable. Furthermore, the Board should also find
`
`challenged dependent claim 13 not unpatentable because Petitioner has failed to
`
`show that the “connecting unit” is “separable from the receiving space,” as required
`
`by the claim.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`II. The Petition Relies on the Same Structure in Hong for the “Receiving
`Space” and the “Connecting Unit”
`Petitioner claims that Patent Owner wrongly identifies the elements of Hong
`
`that the Petition relies upon to satisfy the “substrate comprising a receiving space”
`
`and “connecting unit” limitations of the claims of the ’565 Patent. Petitioner is
`
`incorrect.
`
`There is no dispute that the Petition identifies Hong’s wiring layer 27 as being
`
`part the “connecting unit.” Further, there can be no reasonable dispute that what the
`
`Petition purports to identify as a “receiving space” in Hong is also, in fact, Hong’s
`
`wiring layer 27. The Petition relies on the wiring layer 27 to satisfy both the
`
`“receiving space” and “connecting unit” limitations. Petitioner does not contest that
`
`the “receiving space” and “connecting unit” limitations are separate and distinct.
`
`Thus, the Petition fails to show that both limitations can be satisfied by Hong (alone
`
`or in combination with the other references) and therefore cannot invalidate the
`
`challenged claims of the ’565 Patent.
`
`A. Hong’s Disclosure Of A Substrate Containing A Wiring Layer
`
`Petitioner relies on the wiring layer 27 of Hong as part of the “connecting
`
`unit”:
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`Petition at 31; see also id. at 32 (“[T]he wiring layer 27 and the rectifying unit 13
`
`together render obvious the claimed connecting unit.”).
`
`As Petitioner also describes, the “wiring layer 27 [is] disposed in substrate
`
`connecting inner end of coil 11c to rectifying unit 13”:
`
`
`Petition at 20. This description is consistent with Hong’s disclosure of a multi-layer
`
`circuit board, with two outermost layers for the coil (although the coil may also be
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`formed on an inner layer, see Ex. 1005, Fig. 6) and semiconductor devices, and
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`multiple inner layers for “wirings” between the outermost layers:
`
`The main circuit board 20 has a multiple structure composed of a first
`outermost layer 21a, a second outermost layer 21b, and a plurality of
`inner layers disposed between the first and second outermost layers 21a
`and 21b. The first outermost layer 21a includes one or more
`semiconductor devices formed at an upper surface of the main circuit
`board 20. The second outermost layer 21b includes one or more
`semiconductor devices formed at a lower surface of the main circuit
`board 20. The secondary coil unit 11 may be formed at one of the first
`and second outermost layers 21a and 21b of the main circuit board 20.
`Furthermore, the plurality of inner layers include wirings formed
`between the first and second outermost layers 21a and 21b, and via
`holes connecting the wirings to each other. This will be illustrated in
`more detail with reference to FIG. 4.
`Ex. 1005, 4:33-47 (emphasis added).
`
`Figure 4 further shows an exemplary cross-sectional view of a connection
`
`between one end 11c of the coil and connecting terminal 13b, going down to the top-
`
`most inner layer of the circuit board through via 25a, across a wiring on that inner
`
`layer to via 25b to go down to the next inner layer, where a wiring goes across to via
`
`25c to go up to the outer-most layer 21a. See Ex. 1005, Fig. 4; see also id., 5:19-24
`
`(“The end 11c of the coil layer 11a makes contact to the connecting terminal 13b
`
`through the wiring layer 27 formed in via holes 25a, 25b, and 25c, which are formed
`
`on inner layers 23 of the main circuit board 20. A via hole and a wiring layer may
`
`be formed via another inner layer according to a designed condition of the inner
`
`layers 23.”); 4:28-32 (“[A] material of the secondary coil unit 11 on the main circuit
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`board 20 may be the same as that of a conductive wiring and may be a conductive
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`material to generate an induced electromotive force.”). Hong further identifies the
`
`conductive wirings on each of the inner layer of the circuit board as a “wiring layer.”
`
`Id., 5:27-30 (“[T]he rectifying unit 13 and the charging unit 15 may connect with the
`
`secondary coil unit 11 through one or more via holes and wiring layers formed in
`
`inner layers 23.”) (emphasis added).
`
`To form the circuit board, including the coil and wirings / wiring layers, Hong
`
`discloses a well-known patterning process that forms the chosen coil/wiring material
`
`on each layer:
`
`In an exemplary implementation, the secondary coil unit 11 may be
`formed on the main circuit board 20 during a patterning process. More
`specifically, the secondary coil unit 11 may be formed during a
`patterning process, which may occur during the same patterning
`process used to form the semiconductor circuit wiring.
`For example, the secondary coil unit 11 may be manufactured by
`sequentially performing a deposition process, a coating process, an
`exposure process, a development process, an etching process, and a
`peeling process.
`Ex. 1005, 3:53-62; see also id., 4:6-11 (“[T]he patterning process of the coil layer is
`
`performed simultaneously with formation of a circuit wiring on the main circuit
`
`board 20”); see also Ex. 1008, [0065]-[0066] (“The flexible substrate according to
`
`the embodiment of the present invention may be any substrate such as a film type
`
`printed circuit board, a thin type printed circuit board, or the like as long as it has a
`
`thin thickness and includes a wiring pattern formed thereon.”); see also Ex. 2018,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,674,610, 1:35-40 (“A printed circuit board (PCB) is a circuit
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`board which plays a role of electrically connecting or mechanically fixing
`
`predetermined electronic components and consists of an insulating layer made of a
`
`phenol resin or an epoxy resin and a copper foil layer attached to the insulating layer
`
`and having a predetermined wiring pattern formed thereon.”).
`
`As part of the process of the creation of a circuit board, the individual layers,
`
`consisting of insulator and conductive wiring portions, are pressed together. See Ex.
`
`2017, Phinney Tr., 56:23-59:15; Ex. 2018, 7:7-14 (“Generally, one pattern layer is
`
`formed by sequentially stacking an insulator and a copper foil layer on a lower
`
`pattern layer, forming a via hole or a through hole in the insulator and the copper
`
`foil layer, performing copper plating on the insulator and the copper foil layer having
`
`the via hole or the through hole formed therein, and etching the insulator and the
`
`copper foil layer according to a circuit pattern.”).
`
`When complete, Hong’s circuit board includes the outermost layers with a
`
`coil and connecting terminals for semiconductor devices and other components, and
`
`the inner layers with conductive wiring between via holes. It is in this circuit board
`
`that Petitioner finds the claimed “connecting unit” and “receiving space.” More
`
`specifically, Petitioner points to “wiring layer 27” as part of the “connecting unit”
`
`and “via holes 25a, 25b, and 25c and the space extending between them” as the
`
`“receiving space” that “receives the wiring layer 27.” Petition at 32-33. Petitioner
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`conjures “the space extending between” the via holes out of thin air. Hong makes
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`no such reference and does not refer to any “space” between via holes. Hong only
`
`refers to the “wirings,” Ex. 1005, 4:33-36, or “wiring layers,” id., 5:27-30, as
`
`existing between the via holes on the inner layers:
`
`
`Id., Fig 4 (annotated). To that end, Hong teaches that the wirings and wiring layers
`
`exist within the inner layers of the circuit board and are not part of a separate and
`
`distinct “connecting unit”, which is “disposed in” a separate and distinct “receiving
`
`space of a predetermined shape formed” in a “substrate.”
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`B. Hong Does Not Disclose A “Receiving Space” In Which A Separate
`And Distinct “Connecting Unit” Is Disposed
`
`Hong does not disclose a “receiving space” that is formed in a “substrate”
`
`whereby a separate and distinct component (i.e., the “connecting unit”) is “disposed
`
`in.” The wiring of the inner layers in Hong is created on each individual layer, as
`
`part of a well-known patterning process, before the layers are pressed together,
`
`meaning there is no space extending between the via holes that the wiring layer is
`
`disposed in. The conductive wiring extends between the via holes at manufacture
`
`of the circuit board. This is consistent with Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure
`
`4 on page 20 of the Petition:
`
`Petition at 20.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Also consistent with Hong’s disclosure and Petitioner’s annotation of Figure
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`4, Patent Owner correctly identified that Petitioner’s only reliance on Hong for the
`
`“receiving space” limitation was to the via holes 25a, 25b, and 25c and the wiring
`
`between the via holes formed on the inner layers of the circuit board. Hong refers
`
`to this collection as “wiring layer 27.” See Ex. 1005, 5:19-24. Petitioner asserts that
`
`“neither the Petition nor Dr. Phinney’s declaration ever relies on the via holes 25a,
`
`25b, and 25c as a structural element to establish that Hong teaches the ‘connecting
`
`unit.’” Reply at 7. This is nothing more than semantics because Hong describes the
`
`via holes as connecting the inner layer wirings together, Ex. 1005, 4:33-36, and thus
`
`are part of the wiring layer 27. Patent Owner correctly asserted that Petitioner was
`
`relying on “wiring layer 27” to satisfy both the connecting unit of the challenged
`
`claims and the receiving space. Patent Owner’s Response at 27-30.
`
`Petitioner asserts that “[t]he Petition and Dr. Phinney’s declaration further
`
`establish that the space within Hong’s substrate that is filled with its wiring layer
`
`(and thus not the substrate material) teaches a “receiving space” within a substrate.”
`
`Reply at 6 (citing Petition at 32-33, Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 67-68). As shown above, this is
`
`contradicted by the clear teachings of Hong. Furthermore, the cited paragraphs of
`
`the declaration merely repeat verbatim the conclusory assertion in the Petition for
`
`which it is offered to support. “Thus, the cited declaration testimony is conclusory
`
`and unsupported, adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`support, and is entitled to little weight.” Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`00624, Paper No. 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential).
`
`Petitioner’s argument that “Hong’s receiving space is formed within the layers
`
`of the main circuit board 20 and is the space within its substrate that would otherwise
`
`be empty and void of any substrate material but for the wiring layer 27 that is
`
`‘formed in’ and thereby disposed in it,” Reply at 9 (emphasis added), is unfounded
`
`and wrong. There are no voids or empty space in Hong’s inner layers through which
`
`the conductive wiring runs nor does Hong teach anything to that effect. Hong’s
`
`circuit board, made using well-known processes, consists of layers of insulation and
`
`conductive material that are stacked on top of each other, pressed and cured to form
`
`a laminated structure.
`
`Petitioner states that “the only evidence in the record on this point confirms
`
`that a POSITA would understand the need and purpose for the receiving space of
`
`Hong’s substrate.” Reply at 13. But, as demonstrated above, Hong does not have a
`
`“receiving space” in the circuit board and, accordingly, there is no basis for
`
`Petitioner’s statement. Pointing to Ex. 1012, Petitioner further asserts that “’[i]t was
`
`well known to POSITAs in the electrical arts that when manufacturing printed circuit
`
`boards that will contain embedded components, ‘recesses’ or ‘openings’ (receiving
`
`spaces) are formed in the layers of the circuit board to accommodate the embedded
`
`components.’” Petition at 13-14 (citation omitted). Not only does Hong not have a
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`“receiving space” in the circuit board in which a separate “connecting unit” could be
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`disposed, but there is no teaching in Hong, and Petitioner does not allege that there
`
`is any, of the use of “embedded components” that would require “recesses” or
`
`“openings” formed in the layers of the circuit board.
`
`The claims of the ’565 Patent require a “substrate comprising a receiving
`
`space of a predetermined shape formed therein” and a “connecting unit” that “is
`
`disposed in the receiving space.” For these limitations, as discussed above,
`
`Petitioner just points to the structure of the wiring layer 27, which Hong makes clear
`
`is part of the circuit board and not a feature of a separate and distinct “connecting
`
`unit.” There is no “receiving space” formed in Hong’s circuit board, only the formed
`
`wiring layer. Consequently, there is no “receiving space” in which the “connecting
`
`unit is disposed,” nor is there a “connecting unit” that is separate and distinct from
`
`the circuit board (Petitioner’s “substrate”) in Hong. The challenged claims are not
`
`unpatentable over Hong.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Do Not Convert The Challenged
`Apparatus Claims To Process Claims
`
`The claims of the ’565 Patent are apparatus claims that require a separate and
`
`distinct “connecting unit” that is “disposed in the receiving space [of the substrate]”.
`
`The claims further require that the “connecting unit” is “connected to the coil unit”
`
`and “configured to connect to the wireless power receiving circuit.” The use of
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`“disposed in,” “connected to,” and “configured to connect to” in the claims to
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`describe the inter-relationship of the physical structures of the “connecting unit”
`
`whereby the “substrate comprising a receiving space,” the “coil unit,” and the
`
`“wireless power receiving circuit” means that those structures were previously
`
`separate. See Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 938 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013). “When a patentee chooses to use these words, they should be given their
`
`ordinary meanings with respect to the claimed product’s structure.” Id.
`
`Despite this, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner is improperly importing
`
`manufacturing or assembly steps into the claims. Reply at 11-12 (erroneously
`
`concluding “[t]hat the wiring layer becomes ‘disposed in’ Hong’s receiving space
`
`by being ‘formed in’ Hong’s receiving space is irrelevant to the obviousness
`
`analysis.”). That is not the case. The ’565 Patent’s use of terms like “disposed in”
`
`and “connected to” “describe[ ] the product more by its structure than by the process
`
`used to obtain it.” Hazani v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1997) (citing In re Moore, 58 CCPA 1042, 439 F.2d 1232, 1236 (1971)); see
`
`also 3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1371
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003) (the use of “superimposed” in the lexicographical definition of a
`
`claim term neither transforms the apparatus claim “into a product-by-process claim
`
`nor even limits the scope of the claim to a serial method of manufacture; it describes
`
`only the structural relationship between the embossing patterns”). For example,
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`merely because a patentee may claim a “chair” comprising of a seat “connected to”
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`four legs does not mean that the claimed “chair” is transformed into a product-by-
`
`process claim. Rather, infringement occurs when someone sells, for example, a chair
`
`that has a seat “connected to” four legs. Here too, there is infringement when a
`
`“wireless power receiver” comprises a distinct substrate, coil unit, and connecting
`
`unit that are arranged in the claimed configuration.
`
`III. Hong Does Not Teach The “Connecting Unit” As Separable From The
`“Receiving Space”
`Claim 13 requires that the “connecting unit” is “disposed in the receiving
`
`space” and is “configured that it is separable from the receiving space.” Ex. 1001,
`
`20:30-31, 20:42-44. Petitioner contends that, based on the broad plain meaning of
`
`“separable,” and that the claim encompasses a “connecting unit that is secured within
`
`the receiving space by solder,” the separability of Hong’s rectifying unit, that is in
`
`direct contact with via hole 25, satisfies this limitation. Reply at 16-18. Petitioner
`
`does not explain how anything but the rectifying unit is separable from the purported
`
`“receiving space.” The rectifying unit, as Petitioner acknowledges, is, at most “in
`
`direct contact with via hole 25c.” Id. at 17. The rectifying unit is not disposed in
`
`the “receiving space,” nor does Petitioner contend so. Nothing that is disposed in
`
`Hong’s “receiving space,” i.e., wiring layer 27 consisting of via holes and inner layer
`
`wiring, is separable from that “receiving space.” Petitioner’s reliance on the
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`rectifying unit as separable does not satisfy the clear requirements of the claim.
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`Petitioner’s challenge to claim 13 of the ’565 Patent fails.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`Because Petitioner does not identify separate components in Hong to satisfy
`
`each of the “substrate comprising a receiving space of a predetermined shape formed
`
`therein” that is a separate and distinct component from the “connecting unit”
`
`limitations, as required by the claims of the ’565 Patent, Petitioner has not satisfied
`
`its burden to show that Hong meets all of the limitations of the claims of the ’565
`
`Patent. In addition, Petitioner has failed to establish that Hong discloses a
`
`“connecting unit” that is “separable from the receiving space,” as required by
`
`dependent claim 13. Patent Owner respectfully requests that all challenged claims
`
`be found not unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 3, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brett Cooper
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Brett Cooper (Reg. No. 55,085)
`Lead counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`CERTIFICATION REGARDING WORD COUNT
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), Patent Owner certifies that there are 3,707
`
`
`
`
`
`words in the paper excluding the portions exempted under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1).
`
`/s/ Brett Cooper
`
`
`
`Brett Cooper, Reg. No. 55,085
`Lead counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 3, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00350 (’565 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above document was served on
`
`March 3, 2023, by filing this document, and accompanying Exhibits 2017 and 2018,
`
`through the Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System as well as delivering a
`
`copy via electronic mail upon the following attorneys of record for the Petitioner:
`
`Scott T. Jarratt (Reg No. 70,297)
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Andrew S. Ehmke (Reg No. 50,271)
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Calmann J. Clements (Reg No. 66,910)
`calmann.clements.ipr@haynesboone.com
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Phone: (972) 739-8663
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 3, 2023
`
`BC Law Group, P.C.
`200 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`(212) 951-0100
`
` /s/ Brett Cooper
`
`
`
`
`
`Brett Cooper
`Reg. No. 55,085
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
