Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 32
`Date: July 27, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KARL D. EASTHOM, and MICHELLE N.
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 32
`Date: July 27, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KARL D. EASTHOM, and MICHELLE N.
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting
`inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5–7, 14–16, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent
`No. 10,622,842 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’842 patent”). Scramoge Technology
`Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6). With our
`authorization (see Paper 7), Petitioner filed a preliminary Reply (Paper 8) to
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and Patent Owner filed a preliminary
`Sur-reply (Paper 9) to Petitioner’s preliminary Reply. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314, we instituted an inter partes review of all the challenged claims based
`on all the grounds presented in the Petition. Paper 10 (“Inst. Dec.”).
`Thereafter, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 17, “PO Resp.”) to the
`Petition, Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 22, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner
`filed a Sur-reply (Paper 23, “PO Sur-reply”). On May 3, 2023, we
`conducted an oral hearing. A copy of the transcript (Paper 31, “Tr.”) is in
`the record.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons that
`follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1, 2, 5–7, 14–16, 19, and 20 of the ’842 patent are
`unpatentable. This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 318(a).
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify one federal district court case, Scramoge
`Technology Limited v. Apple Inc., No. 5:22-cv-03041 (N.D. Cal.). Paper 8,
`2; Paper 27, 2–3 (Patent Owner’s Second Amended Mandatory Notices);
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`Ex. 1021, 10 (PACER docket report). Patent Owner also identifies several
`inter partes review proceedings. Paper 27, 2.
`
`
`B. The ’842 Patent
`The ’842 patent describes wireless power receivers. Ex. 1001, 1:21–
`22. In one embodiment, the wireless power receiver includes a shielding
`unit to prevent the electronic appliance in which the wireless power receiver
`is installed from malfunctioning. Id. at 2:1–3, 2:41–45, 3:4–6; see also id. at
`1:55–57 (“[A] magnetic field generated from the receiving coil exerts an
`influence on an inside of an electronic appliance, so that the electronic
`appliance malfunctions.”). The electronic appliance may be a portable
`device. Id. at 1:39–43.
`To illustrate, Figure 10 of the ’842 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 10 shows a wireless power receiver, which includes printed circuit
`board 301, short-range communication antenna 340, a receiving coil (not
`shown), and shielding unit 380. Ex. 1001, 3:4–6, 8:21–23, 8:44–50. Printed
`circuit board 301 includes multiple layers where each layer is spaced apart
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`from adjacent layers. Id. at 8:44–46. Short-range communication
`antenna 340 or the receiving coil is disposed in printed circuit board 301. Id.
`at 8:46–49. Shielding unit 380 also is disposed in printed circuit board 301.
`Id. at 8:49–50. In particular, shielding unit 380 is disposed under short-
`range communication antenna 340 or the receiving coil. Id. at 8:51–52.
`Short-range communication antenna 340, the receiving coil, and shielding
`unit 380 are disposed between the layers of printed circuit board 301. Id. at
`8:52–56.
`The wireless power receiver, as shown in Figure 10, can be divided
`into two regions. Ex. 1001, 9:6–12. First region 411, includes portions of
`layers in printed circuit board 301 that overlap the receiving coil in vertical
`direction 400, which is perpendicular to upper surface 385 of shielding
`unit 380. Id. at 9:6–10. Second region 412, 413 includes portions of the
`same layers that do not overlap the receiving coil in vertical direction 400.
`Id. at 9:10–12. First gap or distance d1, which is measured in vertical
`direction 400 between layers in first region 411, is greater than second gap
`or distance d2, which is measured in vertical direction 400 between layers in
`second region 412, 413. Id. at 9:12–16.
`The ’842 patent explains that, “when the shielding unit 380 is inserted
`into the printed circuit board 301, the entire thickness of the wireless power
`receiver . . . may be reduced,” and “a separate procedure of attaching the
`shielding unit 380 is not necessary, so the manufacturing process may be
`simplified.” Ex. 1001, 8:66–9:6.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 5–7, 14–16, 19, and
`20 of the ’842 patent, where claims 1 and 19 are independent. Claim 1,
`reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims under challenge.
`1. A wireless power receiver, comprising:
`a shielding unit;
`a first layer on the shielding unit;
`a wireless power receiving coil on the first layer;
`a second layer on the wireless power receiving coil;
`a first region in which at least one of the first layer and the
`second layer overlaps the wireless power receiving coil in
`a vertical direction perpendicular to an upper surface of
`the shielding unit; and
`a second region in which at least one of the first layer and the
`second layer does not overlap the wireless power receiving
`coil in the vertical direction,
`wherein a first distance, measured in the vertical direction,
`between the first layer and the second layer in the first
`region is greater than a second distance, measured in the
`vertical direction, between the first layer and the second
`layer in the second region.
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 5–7, 14–16, 19, and 20 of the
`’842 patent on the following two grounds. Pet. 15–54. We instituted inter
`partes review. Inst. Dec. 27.
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §1
`Claims Challenged
`1, 2, 5–7, 14–16, 19, 20 103
`7
`103
`
`References
`
`Suzuki2
`Suzuki, Park3
`
`In support of its arguments, Petitioner relies on a Declaration of
`Dr. Joshua Phinney, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003). Patent Owner relies on a Declaration
`of Dr. David S. Ricketts, Ph.D. (Ex. 2017). The transcripts of the
`depositions of Drs. Phinney and Ricketts are entered in the record as
`Exhibits 2020 and 1023, respectively.
`
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review proceeding, we construe a claim of a patent
`“using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe
`the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) (2021). Applying that standard, we construe the claim in
`accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would have been
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account the
`specification and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. See id.;
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) amended 35 U.S.C. § 103,
`effective March 16, 2013. See Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88
`(2011). Because the application from which the ’842 patent issued claims
`the benefit of priority to an application that was filed before this date, the
`pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
`2 Suzuki, U.S. Patent No. 8,421,574 B2, issued Apr. 16, 2013 (Ex. 1005).
`3 Park, U.S. Patent No. 8,922,162 B2, issued Dec. 30, 2014 (Ex. 1006).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that “no terms require specific construction.”
`Pet. 10. Patent Owner does not respond. See generally PO Resp. For
`purposes of this Decision, we conclude that no claim term requires express
`interpretation to resolve any controversy in this proceeding. See Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`
`B. Obviousness over Suzuki
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 2, 5–7, 14–16, 19, and 20 of the
`’842 patent would have been obvious over Suzuki. Pet. 16–39. Patent
`Owner disputes Petitioner’s analysis regarding only claim 7. PO Resp. 12–
`18. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 14–
`16, 19, and 20 would have been obvious over Suzuki. Petitioner has not,
`however, demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 7
`would have been obvious over Suzuki.
`We start with an overview of the asserted prior art, Suzuki.
`
`
`1. Overview of Suzuki
`Suzuki relates to a contactless power transmission apparatus, which
`includes a power transmitter in a primary side and a power receiver in a
`secondary side. Ex. 1005, 4:46–50. The transmitter and the receiver include
`primary and secondary coils, respectively, which can transmit electric power
`from the primary side to the secondary side via electromagnetic induction.
`Id. at 4:50–55. The transmitter may be a charger, and the receiver may be a
`cell phone. Id. at 4:56–59.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`Suzuki describes various embodiments of the receiver. See, e.g.,
`Ex. 1005, 9:9–23. Figure 9 of Suzuki, which describes a second
`embodiment, is reproduced below. Id.
`
`
`Figure 9 shows a power receiver in a contactless power transmission
`apparatus that includes secondary coil block 17, load 162, and radiation
`layer 174. Id. at 4:60–63, 6:29–33, 9:11–13, 9:16–19. Secondary coil
`block 17 includes secondary coil 170, magnetic layer 171, shield layer 172,
`and heat insulation layer 173. Id. at 6:29–33. Load 162 is a battery pack
`located in a battery compartment of the receiver and is covered with battery
`cover 152. Id. at 5:50–51, 6:8–12. Radiation layer 174 is formed between
`battery cover 152 and secondary coil 170 to improve radiation
`characteristics from battery cover 152. Id. at 9:16–19.
`In summarizing the parts of its second embodiment, Suzuki states that
`the primary side includes a primary coil with a magnetic layer laminated on
`one side of the primary coil, whereas the secondary side includes secondary
`coil 170 with magnetic layer 171 laminated on one side of secondary
`coil 170 and shield layer 172 laminated on magnetic layer 171. See
`Ex. 1005, 10:43–48 (describing “first-fifth embodiments”). Suzuki explains
`that “if a shield layer is also laminated on the magnetic layer of a primary
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`side, noise can be converted into heat to be absorbed with two shield layers,”
`and that “power transmission efficiency between primary and secondary
`sides can be enhanced with the two magnetic layers.” Id. at 10:48–53.
`Suzuki further explains, however, “the housings of primary and secondary
`devices exist between primary and secondary coils, and accordingly
`coupling between the primary and secondary coils is reduced and magnetic
`flux leakage can be increased, thereby creating difficulty in fully eliminating
`noise with a shield layer made of copper foil, aluminum foil or the like.” Id.
`at 10:57–62.
`In order to “further reduce the influence of noise,” Suzuki teaches
`using a plurality of magnetic layers in at least the secondary side. Ex. 1005,
`10:63–65. To illustrate, Figure 17A of Suzuki, which describes a sixth
`embodiment, is reproduced below. Id. at 10:38–42.
`
`
`Figure 17A shows a contactless power transmission apparatus where each of
`the primary side (transmitter) and the secondary side (receiver) includes a
`plurality of magnetic layers. Id. at 10:65–67. For example, the power
`receiver in the secondary side includes housing 150 with secondary coil 170
`“stuck” on the inner face of housing 150, and a plurality of magnetic
`layers 171H and 171L that are laminated on one side of secondary coil 170.
`Id. at 11:9–14.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`Still referring to its sixth embodiment, Suzuki teaches further adding
`data transmission coils to the primary and secondary sides. Ex. 1005,
`12:51–56. To illustrate, Figure 21 of Suzuki is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 21 shows a contactless power transmission apparatus where the
`primary side is charger 10 and the secondary side is a receiver (referred to as
`cell phone 15). Ex. 1005, 12:51–52. Charger 10 includes data transmission
`coil 104 and the receiver includes data transmission coil 154, where the coils
`send and receive signals containing information, such as charging start and
`charging completion. Id. at 12:53–58. Charger 10 also includes magnetic
`layer 105 located on coil 104, and the receiver similarly includes magnetic
`layer 155 located on coil 154. Id. at 12:58–62. Suzuki explains that, “[i]n
`this embodiment, reliability of signal transmission between the coils 104 and
`154 can be improved.” Id. at 12:62–64.
`
`
`2. Analysis
`We turn now to our discussion of the challenged claims.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`a. Independent Claim 1
`Claim 1 is directed to a “wireless power receiver” comprising a
`“shielding unit,” a “first layer,” a “wireless power receiving coil,” a “second
`layer,” a “first region,” and a “second region.” Claim 1 recites various
`limitations designated by Petitioner as limitations 1.1 through 1.7. For its
`analysis of claim 1, Petitioner relies on Suzuki’s second embodiment
`(Figure 9) of a power receiver. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 9); Ex. 1005,
`9:10–23.
`We address Petitioner’s analysis of the limitations of claim 1 in turn.
`
`
`i. Limitation 1.1: “shielding unit”
`Claim 1 recites “a shielding unit.” For this limitation, which
`Petitioner designates as limitation 1.1, Petitioner identifies Suzuki’s shield
`layer 172 as a “shielding unit.” Pet. 21. To illustrate, Petitioner provides an
`inverted, cropped, and annotated version of Figure 9 of Suzuki, reproduced
`below. Id.
`
`
`Petitioner’s version of Figure 9 shows a portion of a power receiver that
`includes secondary coil block 17. See Ex. 1005, 6:29–33, 9:11–13.
`Secondary coil block 17 includes shield layer 172 (shown with red shading).
`Pet. 21; Ex. 1005, 6:29–33.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Suzuki teaches the recited shielding unit of limitation 1.1. Patent Owner
`does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See generally PO
`Resp.
`
`
`ii. Limitation 1.2: “first layer”
`Claim 1 further recites “a first layer on the shielding unit.” For this
`limitation, which Petitioner designates as limitation 1.2, Petitioner identifies
`Suzuki’s magnetic layer 171 as a “first layer.” Pet. 21. As support,
`Petitioner directs us to where Suzuki teaches that “[t]he shield layer 172 is
`also laminated on at least the upper surface of the magnetic layer 171.”
`Ex. 1005, 6:35–38 (cited by Pet. 21–22). Petitioner further provides an
`inverted, cropped, and annotated version of Figure 9 of Suzuki, which is
`reproduced below. Pet. 22.
`
`
`Petitioner’s version of Figure 9 shows a portion of a power receiver that
`includes secondary coil block 17. See Ex. 1005, 6:29–33, 9:11–13.
`Secondary coil block 17 includes magnetic layer 171 (shown with green
`shading) and shield layer 172 (shown with red shading). Pet. 22; Ex. 1005,
`6:29–33.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Suzuki teaches the recited first layer of limitation 1.2. Patent Owner does
`not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`iii. Limitation 1.3: “wireless power receiving coil”
`Claim 1 further recites “a wireless power receiving coil on the first
`layer.” For this limitation, which Petitioner designates as limitation 1.3,
`Petitioner identifies Suzuki’s secondary coil 170 as a “wireless power
`receiving coil.” Pet. 22. As support, Petitioner directs us to where Suzuki
`teaches that its “secondary coil 170 is a planar coil and the magnetic
`layer 171 is laminated on at least one side (an upper surface) of the
`secondary coil 170.” Ex. 1005, 6:33–35 (quoted by Pet. 22); see also id. at
`6:41–46 (quoted by Pet. 22). Petitioner also provides an inverted, cropped,
`and annotated version of Figure 9 of Suzuki, which is reproduced below.
`Pet. 23.
`
`
`This version of Figure 9 shows a portion of a power receiver that includes
`secondary coil block 17. See Ex. 1005, 6:29–33, 9:11–13. Secondary coil
`block 17 includes secondary coil 170 (shown with blue shading) and
`magnetic layer 171 (shown with green shading), where magnetic layer 171
`corresponds to the recited first layer. Pet. 23; Ex. 1005, 6:29–33.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Suzuki teaches the recited wireless power receiving coil of limitation 1.3.
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See
`generally PO Resp.
`
`
`iv. Limitation 1.4: “second layer”
`Claim 1 further recites “a second layer on the wireless power
`receiving coil.” For this limitation, which Petitioner designates as
`limitation 1.4, Petitioner identifies Suzuki’s radiation layer 174 as a “second
`layer.” Pet. 23. As support, Petitioner directs us to where Suzuki teaches “a
`radiation layer 174 intervened between the battery cover 152 and the
`secondary coil 170 in order to improve radiation characteristics from the
`battery cover 152.” Ex. 1005, 9:16–19 (quoted by Pet. 23). To illustrate,
`Petitioner provides an inverted, cropped, and annotated version of Figure 9
`of Suzuki, reproduced below. Pet. 24.
`
`
`This version of Figure 9 shows a portion of a power receiver that includes
`secondary coil block 17 and radiation layer 174. See Ex. 1005, 6:29–33,
`9:11–13, 9:16–19. Secondary coil block 17 includes secondary coil 170
`(shown with blue shading), which corresponds to the recited wireless power
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`receiving coil. Pet. 24; Ex. 1005, 6:29–33. Radiation layer 174 is shown
`with purple shading. Pet. 24.
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Suzuki teaches the recited second layer of limitation 1.4. Patent Owner does
`not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`v. Limitations 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7: “first region” / “second region”
`Claim 1 further recites “a first region in which at least one of the first
`layer and the second layer overlaps the wireless power receiving coil in a
`vertical direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the shielding unit.”
`Petitioner designates this limitation as limitation 1.5. Pet. 24. Claim 1 also
`recites “a second region in which at least one of the first layer and the
`second layer does not overlap the wireless power receiving coil in the
`vertical direction.” Petitioner designates this limitation as limitation 1.6. Id.
`at 26. Lastly, claim 1 recites “a first distance, measured in the vertical
`direction, between the first layer and the second layer in the first region is
`greater than a second distance, measured in the vertical direction, between
`the first layer and the second layer in the second region.” Petitioner
`designates this limitation as limitation 1.7. Id. at 27. We discuss these
`limitations in turn.
`With respect to limitation 1.5 (which recites “a first region in which at
`least one of the first layer and the second layer overlaps the wireless power
`receiving coil in a vertical direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the
`shielding unit”), Petitioner provides an inverted, cropped, and annotated
`version of Figure 9 of Suzuki, reproduced below. Pet. 25.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 9, as inverted, cropped, and annotated by Petitioner, shows a portion
`of a power receiver. See Ex. 1005, 9:11–13. Relying on this version of
`Figure 9, Petitioner asserts that “Suzuki teaches a region in which the
`magnetic layer 171 (‘first layer’) is below the coil 170 and the radiation
`layer (‘second layer’) is above the coil 170.” Pet. 24. Petitioner further
`asserts that “each of the magnetic layer 171 (‘first layer’) and the radiation
`layer (‘second layer’) overlaps the wireless power receiving coil 170 in a
`vertical direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the shielding layer.”
`Id. at 25.
`With respect to limitation 1.6 (which recites “a second region in
`which at least one of the first layer and the second layer does not overlap the
`wireless power receiving coil in the vertical direction”), Petitioner provides
`another inverted, cropped, and annotated version of Figure 9 of Suzuki,
`reproduced below. Pet. 26.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`
`This version of Figure 9 shows a portion of a power receiver. See Ex. 1005,
`9:11–13. Petitioner asserts that “Suzuki teaches a region in which neither
`the magnetic layer 171 (‘first layer’) nor the radiation layer (‘second layer’)
`overlap[s] the coil 170 in the vertical direction.” Pet. 26.
`Lastly, with respect to limitation 1.7 (which recites “a first distance,
`measured in the vertical direction, between the first layer and the second
`layer in the first region is greater than a second distance, measured in the
`vertical direction, between the first layer and the second layer in the second
`region”), Petitioner provides yet another version of Figure 9 of Suzuki,
`reproduced below. Pet. 27.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`Petitioner’s figure is an inverted, cropped, and annotated version of Figure 9,
`which shows a portion of a power receiver. See Ex. 1005, 9:11–13.
`According to Petitioner, “the double-sided red arrow illustrates a point at
`which the distance between the magnetic layer 171 (‘first layer’) and the
`radiation layer 174 (‘second layer’) . . . is greater in the first region than in
`the second region.” Pet. 27. Petitioner asserts that, “in the first region, the
`coil 170 is interposed between the magnetic layer and radiation layer, as the
`coil is pressed into the magnetic layer,” whereas, “in the second region, the
`magnetic layer is adjacent to the radiation layer.” Id. Petitioner contends
`that a “[person of ordinary skill in the art] would have found it obvious that
`the distance between non-adjacent layers is greater than the near-zero
`distance between adjacent layers.” Id. Petitioner relies on the declaration
`testimony of Dr. Phinney. Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58–60).
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Suzuki teaches the recited first and second regions of limitations 1.5, 1.6,
`and 17. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for these
`limitations. See generally PO Resp.
`In summary, based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are
`persuaded that Suzuki teaches the recited limitations of claim 1.
`
`
`b. Dependent Claim 2
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the second
`distance is smaller than a thickness, measured in the vertical direction, of the
`wireless power receiving coil.” For this limitation, Petitioner cross-
`references its discussion of limitation 1.7 and provides an inverted, cropped,
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`and annotated version of Figure 9 of Suzuki, which is reproduced below.
`Pet. 29.
`
`
`Petitioner’s version of Figure 9 shows a portion of a power receiver. See
`Ex. 1005, 9:11–13. Petitioner asserts that, “in the first region, coil 170
`[shown with blue shading] is interposed between the magnetic layer [shown
`with green shading] and radiation layer [shown with purple shading],
`whereas, in the second region, the magnetic layer [shown with green
`shading] is adjacent to the radiation layer [shown with purple shading].”
`Pet. 28. Petitioner contends that “the second distance in the second region
`where the coil is not interposed between the layers, is smaller than the
`thickness of the coil.” Id. According to Petitioner, such distance between
`adjacent layers is “near-zero.” Id. at 27 (discussing limitation 1.7).
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Suzuki teaches the recited limitation of claim 2. Patent Owner does not
`dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`c. Dependent Claim 5
`Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein a portion of the
`first layer is disposed on a side surface of the wireless power receiving coil.”
`For this limitation, Petitioner provides an inverted, cropped, and annotated
`version of Figure 9 of Suzuki, reproduced below. Pet. 30.
`
`
`Figure 9, as inverted, cropped, and annotated by Petitioner, shows a portion
`of a power receiver. See Ex. 1005, 9:11–13. According to Petitioner, this
`version of the figure shows that “a portion of Suzuki’s magnetic layer 171
`(‘first layer’) [shown with green shading] is disposed on a side surface of the
`wireless receiving coil [shown with blue shading].” Pet. 29.
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Suzuki teaches the recited limitation of claim 5. Patent Owner does not
`dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`d. Dependent Claim 6
`Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites “wherein a portion of the
`second layer is disposed on the side surface of the wireless power receiving
`coil.” For this limitation, Petitioner provides an inverted, cropped, and
`annotated version of Figure 9 of Suzuki, reproduced below. Pet. 31.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`
`This version of Figure 9 shows a portion of a power receiver. See Ex. 1005,
`9:11–13. Petitioner asserts that “the upper portions of Suzuki’s coil 170
`[shown with blue shading] extend into the radiation layer 174 [shown with
`purple shading] above,” such that “the radiation layer 174 contacts an upper
`side surface of the coils.” Pet. 30–31. According to Petitioner, “this
`configuration is a result of the manufacturing process, which involves
`pressing layers together.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 8:66–9:1). Petitioner
`contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have thus understood that
`as the layers are pressed together, the coil 170 would press into the radiation
`layer 174,” and that “[t]his pressing thus results in the radiation layer 174
`contacting a side surface of the coil, rather than just a top surface.” Id. at 31.
`Petitioner relies on the declaration testimony of Dr. Phinney. Id. at 30–32
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67).
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Suzuki teaches the recited limitation of claim 6. Patent Owner does not
`dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`
`e. Dependent Claim 7
`Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites “a short-range
`communication antenna on the first layer.” For this limitation, Petitioner
`directs us to Suzuki’s sixth embodiment where the power receiving device
`includes a coil 154 for data transmission. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 12:51–
`64). Petitioner identifies Suzuki’s coil 154 as a “short-range communication
`antenna.” Id. As support, Petitioner points to Suzuki’s teaching that its data
`coil 154 is used to “send and receive a signal (information) representing
`charging start, charging completion” to charger 10. Id. at 33 (quoting
`Ex. 1005, 12:56–58). Petitioner further asserts that “a [person of ordinary
`skill in the art] would have found it obvious that the data coil 154 is a short-
`range antenna because the corresponding data coil 104 in the charger 10 is
`only a short distance away when the power receiving device is charging on
`the charger.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 12:56–58, Fig. 10).
`Petitioner also provides an annotated version of Figure 21 of Suzuki,
`which is reproduced below. Pet. 34.
`
`
`Figure 21 of Suzuki, as annotated by Petitioner, shows “essential parts of [a]
`contactless power transmission apparatus.” See Ex. 1005, 4:36–37.
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`Petitioner asserts that “the data coil 154, like the power receiving coil 170, is
`on a magnetic layer (‘first layer’): ‘[T]he coil 154 is located on the inner
`face of the housing 150, and the magnetic layer 155 is located on the
`coil 154.’” Pet. 34 (quoting Ex. 1005, 12:60–62 (emphasis added by
`Petitioner)). According to Petitioner, “the magnetic layer 171 and the
`magnetic layer 155 are on the same plane and together represent a ‘first
`layer’ as claimed.” Id. Petitioner adds that “the claim language does not
`require that the first layer be contiguous.” Id. Petitioner relies on the
`declaration testimony of Dr. Phinney. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–71).
`Patent Owner makes several arguments. PO Resp. 12–18. For
`example, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “offer[s] only a conclusory
`analysis as to how the data coil 154 of Suzuki would be on the magnetic
`layer 171H and therefore ‘on the first layer’ as required by claim 7.” Id. at
`14. Patent Owner asserts in particular that Petitioner’s “analysis is limited to
`a cursory examination of Fig. 21 showing the data coil 154 and the
`secondary coil 170 to be approximately of the same thickness to conclude
`that ‘the magnetic layer 171 and the magnetic layer 155 are on the same
`plane and together represent a “first layer” as claimed.’” Id. at 14–15.
`Petitioner counters that “[t]he figures of the ’842 patent never
`illustrate a wireless power receiving coil and a short range communication
`antenna on the same layer,” and “[n]or does [the ’842 patent] contemplate
`how they might both be arranged on the same layer.” Pet. Reply 9.
`Petitioner contends that, “[w]ithout any guidance from the specification,
`claim 7 encompasses any reasonable interpretation.” Id.; see also id. at 3
`(“Moreover, the recitation in claim 7 . . . encompasses any reasonable
`interpretation given the lack of description of this arrangement in the
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`’842 Patent specification.”). According to Petitioner, “a reasonable
`interpretation of the term ‘layer’ in light of the specification encompasses
`Suzuki’s magnetic layers 171 and 154 illustrated in Fig. 21.” Id. at 10. In
`that regard, Petitioner further asserts that “where [Suzuki’s] magnetic
`layer 171 is illustrated as subcomponents 171H and 171L, Suzuki’s
`magnetic layer 155 along with 171H, 171L, or both (171) teach a ‘first layer’
`as claimed.” Id. at 11. Petitioner adds that “nothing in the claim limits
`whether the claimed ‘first layer’ must be contiguous, in the same plane, or of
`the same thickness.” Id.
`Petitioner’s contentions are unpersuasive. As discussed above,
`Petitioner provides an annotated version of Figure 21 of Suzuki, which is
`reproduced below. Pet. 34.
`
`
`Figure 21 of Suzuki, as annotated by Petitioner, shows a contactless power
`transmission apparatus. See Ex. 1005, 4:36–37. Referring to its version of
`Figure 21, Petitioner contends that “the magnetic layer 171 and the magnetic
`layer 155 are on the same plane and together represent a ‘first layer’ as
`claimed.” Pet. 34. We note that Petitioner treats magnetic layer 171H in
`Figure 21 as a “subcomponent” of magnetic layer 171. See Pet. Reply 11.
`
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842 B2
`
`Petitioner’s contention does not, however, sufficiently establish that
`Suzuki’s magnetic layer 155 and magnetic layer 171 (or magnetic layer
`171H, as shown in Suzuki’s Figure 21) together represent the recited first
`layer of claim 7.
`As depicted in Petitioner’s version of Figure 21 of Suzuki, reproduced
`above, magnetic layer 155 wraps around coil 154 and has substantial
`portions occupying three different planes including two planes that are
`perpendicular to the one plane highlighted in green by Petitioner. See
`Pet. 34 (annotated Figure 21 of Suzuki). This depiction is inconsistent with
`Petitioner’s position that layers 155 and 171 “together represent a ‘first
`layer’ as claimed,” because Petitioner’s assertion does not account for t
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
