`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`IPR2022-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`
`THE PETITION ESTABLISHES THAT BAARMAN IS PRIOR ART
`IN ACCORDANCE WITH DYNAMIC DRINKWARE ................................... 3
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. COMBINING BAARMAN WITH PARTOVI-002 AND PARTOVI-413
`IS OBVIOUS—GROUNDS 1(A) AND 1(B) ...............................................18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Baarman and Partovi-002—Ground 1(A) .......................................... 18
`
`Baarman and Partovi-413—Ground 1(B) .......................................... 22
`
`IV. GROUND 1A: CLAIMS 5 AND 16 ARE OBVIOUS ................................24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The voltage and/or current sensed by Baarman’s secondary circuit
`is “associated with” its load (load circuit R11-C17). ......................... 24
`
`The “comparing/ [a comparison of] said measured current or
`voltage to a constant reference value” in claims 5 and 16 is not
`required to be used to “maximize an efficiency of power transfer”
`as argued by Patent Owner ................................................................. 27
`
`V.
`
`COMBINING FLOWERDEW WITH JANG AND PARTOVI-413 IS
`OBVIOUS—GROUNDS 2(B), 2(C), AND 2(D) .........................................28
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Flowerdew and Jang ........................................................................... 28
`
`Flowerdew and Partovi-413 ............................................................... 31
`
`VI. GROUND 2(B): CLAIMS 4, 5, 15, AND 16 ARE OBVIOUS ....................32
`
`A.
`
`Flowerdew’s teaching of a sense coil providing a feedback signal
`to a microcontroller (via an interface between the sense coil and
`microcontroller) to vary drive coil frequency renders obvious
`claims 4 and 15 ................................................................................... 32
`
`B.
`
`Flowerdew and Jang are combinable ................................................. 35
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................37
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................39
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`EX1001
`
`U.S. Patent 7,825,537 to Freer (“the ’537 patent”)
`
`EX1002
`
`Prosecution History of the ’537 patent (Serial No. 12/271,023)
`
`EX1003
`
`Declaration of Thomas Szepesi, Ph.D.
`
`EX1004
`
`U.S. Pub. 2009/0174263 (“Baarman”)
`
`EX1005
`
`U.S. Pub. 2007/0279002 (“Partovi-002”)
`
`EX1006
`
`U.S. Pub. 2009/0096413 (“Partovi-413”)
`
`EX1007
`
`U.S. Patent 7,211,986 (“Flowerdew”)
`
`EX1008
`
`U.S. Patent 6,825,620 (“Kuennen”)
`
`EX1009
`
`U.S. Prov. App. Serial No. 61/019,411 (“’411 Provisional”)
`
`EX1010
`
`U.S. Pub. 2004/0218406 (“Jang”)
`
`EX1011
`
`Reserved.
`
`EX1012
`
`U.S. Pub. 2008/0079392 (“Baarman-392”)
`
`EX1013
`
`U.S. Patent 5,600,225 (“Goto”)
`
`EX1014
`
`EX1015
`
`Kim et al., A Contactless Power Supply for Photovoltaic Power
`Generation System, 2008 IEEE Applied Power Electronics
`Conference (pp. 1910-13 in the APEC 2008 Proceedings)
`
`Severns et al., MODERN DC-TO-DC SWITCH MODE POWER
`CONVERTER CIRCUITS, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. (1985) (selected
`excerpts)
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`EX1016
`
`EX1017
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Baker et al., CMOS CIRCUIT DESIGN, LAYOUT, AND SIMULATION,
`IEEE Press (1998) (selected excerpts)
`
`Erickson, FUNDAMENTALS OF POWER ELECTRONICS, Chapman & Hall,
`International Thomson Publishing (1997) (selected excerpts)
`
`EX1018
`
`Horowitz et al., THE ART OF ELECTRONICS, 2nd Ed., Cambridge
`University Press (1989) (selected excerpts)
`
`EX1019
`
`Daniel M. Mitchell, DC-DC SWITCHING REGULATOR ANALYSIS,
`McGraw-Hill (1986) (selected excerpts)
`
`EX1020
`
`Federal Court Trial Statistics
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Petition, supported by Dr. Szepesi’s Declaration (“Expert Declaration”),
`
`both (i) met its burden of production to prove Baarman is prior art and (ii)
`
`established it would have been obvious to form the various proposed combinations
`
`of Baarman, Partovi-002, Partovi-413, Flowerdew, and Jang. Further, the Petition
`
`established that the proposed combinations render obvious the challenged claims
`
`of Grounds 1(A), 1(B), and 2(A)-2(D). Patent Owner’s Response (“Response,”
`
`Paper 17) fails to overcome this demonstration of obviousness because it consists
`
`solely of unsupported attorney argument that ignores the evidence and expert
`
`testimony presented in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the
`
`Board find each of the challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`II. THE PETITION ESTABLISHES THAT BAARMAN IS PRIOR ART
`IN ACCORDANCE WITH DYNAMIC DRINKWARE
`Petitioner has met its burden of production to prove that Baarman is entitled
`
`to the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application in accordance with
`
`Dynamic Drinkware. Petition, 6-8; see Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National
`
`Geographics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378-82 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Specifically, the
`
`Petition states that “[i]n accordance with Dynamic Drinkware, the ’411 Provisional
`
`provides clear and unambiguous support for at least independent claim 1 of
`
`Baarman.” Petition, 6.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Dynamic Drinkware is the seminal case outlining the standard for whether a
`
`
`
`reference is entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional
`
`application. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381 (“A reference patent is
`
`only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if
`
`the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the
`
`reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.”); see also Amgen v. Sanofi, 872
`
`F.3d 1367, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (confirming that the standard set forth in
`
`Dynamic Drinkware applies to published patent applications). The Petition
`
`expressly establishes that the ’411 Provisional meets the Dynamic Drinkware
`
`standard (which encompasses § 112, ¶ 1) by illustrating how it supports Baarman’s
`
`claim 1. Petition, 6; see Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381.
`
`Patent Owner alleges that “neither Petitioner nor its expert show that any
`
`claim of Baarman is enabled by the Baarman Provisional Application” or “address
`
`the issue of enablement.” Response, 8, 9. To the extent Patent Owner is arguing
`
`that the Petition does not address or show enablement because the Petition does not
`
`use the word “enable” or a derivative thereof, Patent Owner ignores the Petition’s
`
`express statement that the ’411 Provisional supports Baarman’s claim 1 “in
`
`accordance with Dynamic Drinkware.” Petition, 6. Patent Owner’s own Response
`
`demonstrates that it understands Dynamic Drinkware to encompass the enablement
`
`requirement. Response, 5 (“In Dynamic Drinkware, the Federal Circuit made clear
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`... ‘the specification of the provisional must “contain a written description of the
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`invention and the manner and process of making and using it ...,” to enable an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan to practice the invention.’” (quoting Dynamic Drinkware,
`
`800 F.3d at 1378) (emphasis added)).
`
`Patent Owner’s argument further fails because the Petition provides direct
`
`evidence (e.g., detailed table and expert explanation) demonstrating that the ’411
`
`Provisional supports Baarman’s claim 1 under Dynamic Drinkware, including
`
`evidence supporting written description and enablement requirements. Petition, 7-
`
`8; EX1003, ¶89. The table in the Petition (and Expert Declaration) “provides an
`
`element-by-element analysis of Baarman’s claim 1, and identifies, for each claim
`
`element, exemplary disclosure from the ’411 Provisional that is relevant to and
`
`plainly supportive of the corresponding element of Baarman’s claim 1.” EX1003,
`
`¶89; Petition, 7-8.
`
`Thus, the Petition met its burden of production under Dynamic Drinkware to
`
`prove that Baarman is entitled to the benefit of the ’411 Provisional’s filing date
`
`under § 119(e)(1) and therefore prior art under § 102(e). The burden of production
`
`then shifted to Patent Owner to prove via evidence that Baarman was not entitled
`
`to the benefit of the filing date of the ’411 Provisional. See Dynamic Drinkware,
`
`800 F.3d at 1379-80 (“the burden of production ... is a shifting burden”). Patent
`
`Owner’s Response does not refute the evidence of record with any of its own
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`evidence or expert testimony to explain how or why it surmises that enablement is
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`not shown. See Response, 4-10. Markedly, Patent Owner has neither argued that
`
`Baarman’s claim 1 is not enabled by the ’411 Provisional nor provided any
`
`evidence thereof. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379-80 (explaining that
`
`the burden of production includes “producing additional evidence and presenting
`
`persuasive argument based on new evidence or evidence already of record”
`
`(quoting Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008))). Accordingly, Patent Owner has failed to meet its burden.
`
`As demonstrated below, the table and expert explanation cited in the Petition
`
`provide all the evidence required under Dynamic Drinkware. Petition, 7-8;
`
`EX1003, ¶89. For each claim element of Baarman’s claim 1, Dr. Szepesi reviewed
`
`and identified each page and figure cited in the table as “relevant to and plainly
`
`supportive” of that claim element, thereby confirming enablement. EX1003, ¶89;
`
`Petition, 7-8.
`
`• “An inductive power supply for providing power wirelessly to a
`remote device, said inductive power supply comprising:”
`The Petition cites Fig. 1 from the ’411 Provisional as exemplary support for
`
`this limitation of Baarman’s claim 1. Petition, 7; EX1003, ¶89. Fig. 1 below
`
`shows an inductive power supply 100 for providing power wirelessly to a remote
`
`device:
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`EX1009, Fig. 1; see also EX1009, 3 (“[a]n inductive power supply or
`primary circuit . . . generally designated 100”); Petition, 7.
`
`
`
`The Petition also cites Figs. 3A-B for additional support and disclosure.
`
`Petition, 7; EX1003, ¶89. Figs.3A-3B are circuit diagrams illustrating an adaptive
`
`inductive power supply 300 for providing power wirelessly to a remote device:
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`EX1009, FIGS. 3A-3B; see also EX1009, 4 (“adaptive inductive power
`supply, shown in Figs. 3A and 3B and generally designated 300”);
`Petition, 7.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`• “a primary circuit for generating a signal at an operating frequency
`and a duty cycle;”
`The Petition cites Fig. 1 from the ’411 Provisional as exemplary support for
`
`this limitation of Baarman’s claim 1. Petition, 7; EX1003, ¶89. Fig. 1 below
`
`shows a primary circuit formed by primary controller 110, driver circuit 111, and
`
`switching circuit 115 (or alternatively, primary circuit 100), for generating a signal
`
`at an operating frequency and a duty cycle:
`
`EX1009, Fig. 1; see also EX1009, 3 (“primary controller 110, driver
`circuit 111 and the switching circuit 115 together generate an AC signal
`at a selected frequency and selected duty cycle”); Petition, 7.
`
`
`
`The Petition also cites Figs. 3A-B for additional support and disclosure for
`
`this claim limitation. Petition, 7; EX1003, ¶89. Figs. 3A-3B are circuit diagrams
`
`illustrating a primary circuit for generating a signal at an operating frequency and a
`
`duty cycle:
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`EX1009, Figs. 3A-3B; see also EX1009, 4 (“primary controller 310,”
`“driver circuit 316,” “switching circuit 315”); Petition, 7.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`• “a tank circuit in electrical communication with said primary circuit,”
`The Petition cites Fig. 1 from the ’411 Provisional as exemplary support for
`
`this limitation of Baarman’s claim 1. Petition, 7; EX1003, ¶89. Fig. 1 below
`
`shows a tank circuit 120 in electrical communication with the primary circuit:
`
`EX1009, Fig. 1; see also EX1009, 3 (“tank circuit 120”); Petition, 7.
`
`The Petition also cites Figs. 3A-B for additional support and disclosure for
`
`this claim limitation. Petition, 7; EX1003, ¶89. Figs. 3A-3B are circuit diagrams
`
`illustrating a tank circuit 320 in electrical communication with the primary circuit:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`EX1009, Figs. 3A-3B; see also EX1009, 4 (“tank circuit 320”); Petition,
`7.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`• “wherein said primary circuit applies said signal to said tank circuit
`to transfer an amount of power to said remote device;”
`The Petition cites Figs. 1-2 from the ’411 Provisional as exemplary support
`
`for this limitation of Baarman’s claim 1. Petition, 7; EX1003, ¶89. Fig. 1 shows a
`
`primary circuit that applies a signal to a tank circuit to transfer an amount of power
`
`to a remote device, and Fig. 2 shows a secondary circuit (remote device) that
`
`receives the power:
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`EX1009, Figs. 1-2; see also EX1009, 3 (“primary controller 110,
`driver circuit 111 and the switching circuit 115 together generate an
`AC signal . . . applied to the tank circuit 120 to create an inductive
`field for transferring power wirelessly to a secondary circuit [200]”);
`Petition, 7.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`• “wherein said inductive power supply receives feedback from said
`remote device;”
`The Petition cites multiple passages from the ’411 Provisional as exemplary
`
`support for this limitation of Baarman’s claim 1. Petition, 7; EX1003, ¶89.
`
`Specifically, the Petition cites the following excerpts describing feedback for
`
`Baarman’s inductive power supply: (i) “maintains resonant frequency and adjusts
`
`duty cycle based on feedback from a secondary circuit” (EX1009, 1);
`
`(ii) “communication using reflected impedance and an optional wireless transmitter
`
`226” ( EX1009, 3); and (iii) “[u]sing feedback from the secondary, ...” (EX1009,
`
`16).
`
`• “wherein, in response to said feedback, said primary circuit controls
`said operating frequency of said signal to optimize power transfer
`efficiency between said inductive power supply and said remote
`device; and”
`The Petition cites Figs. 5 and 6 from the ’411 Provisional as exemplary
`
`support for this limitation of Baarman’s claim 1. Petition, 8; EX1003, ¶89. Figs. 5
`
`and 6 are flowcharts showing how the primary circuit controls the operating
`
`frequency of the signal to optimize power transfer efficiency between the inductive
`
`power supply and remote device in response to feedback:
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`EX1009, Figs. 5-6; see also EX1009, 16 (“[u]sing the feedback from the
`secondary, . . . operating frequency may be adjusted to ensure optimum
`power transfer efficiency”); Petition, 8.
`
`
`
`
`• “wherein, in response to said feedback, said primary circuit controls
`said duty cycle of said signal to control said amount of power
`transferred to said remote device.”
`The Petition cites Fig. 5 from the ’411 Provisional as exemplary support for
`
`this limitation of Baarman’s claim 1. Petition, 8; EX1003, ¶89. Fig. 5 shows how
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`the primary circuit controls the duty cycle of the signal to control the amount of
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`power transferred to the remote device in response to feedback:
`
`EX1009, Fig. 5; see also EX1009, 16 (“[u]sing the feedback from the
`secondary, . . . duty cycle may be adjusted to provide additional or less
`power”); Petition, 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner alleges that neither the Petition nor Expert Declaration
`
`explains “whether the Baarman Provisional Application ‘teach[es] those in the art
`
`to make and use the invention [claimed in Baarman] without undue
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`experimentation.’” Response, 9 (citing In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir.
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`1988)). The pages and figures (including detailed schematics and operational
`
`flowcharts) of the ’411 Provisional (cited in the Petition) clearly demonstrate that a
`
`POSITA would be enabled to make and use the invention of Baarman’s claim 1
`
`without experimentation, let alone undue experimentation. Accordingly, the
`
`Wands factors are irrelevant to the analysis here.
`
`Thus, the Petition evidences—and Patent Owner does not and cannot
`
`refute—that Baarman qualifies as prior art.
`
`III. COMBINING BAARMAN WITH PARTOVI-002 AND PARTOVI-413
`IS OBVIOUS—GROUNDS 1(A) AND 1(B)
`A. Baarman and Partovi-002—Ground 1(A)
`The Petition and Expert Declaration establish it would have been obvious to
`
`use Partovi-002’s positioning technique to position Baarman’s primary and
`
`secondary circuits and that such a combination would yield predictable results and
`
`provide predictable benefits. Petition, 17-19; EX1003, ¶¶113-117. Patent Owner’s
`
`Response fails to rebut this showing of obviousness because it ignores the explicit
`
`reasons for combination and benefits laid out by the Petition and Expert
`
`Declaration and provides zero evidence to support its conclusory attorney
`
`arguments. See Response, 10-14.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Baarman itself expressly acknowledges that power transfer efficiency may
`
`
`
`be impacted by the positioning of a secondary inductor relative to a primary
`
`inductor. See EX1004, [0044] (“although the operating frequency has not
`
`changed, the power efficiency values may have changed as a result in any number
`
`of factors, most notably movement of the secondary”); see also EX1004, [0045]
`
`(describing adjusting the operating frequency “if a motion detector on the
`
`secondary indicates movement or a change in orientation of the secondary”);
`
`EX1009, 14, 15; Petition, 16, 32. And, as Dr. Szepesi testified, to achieve
`
`Baarman’s objective to optimize power transfer efficiency, a POSITA would have
`
`been motivated to find ways to improve alignment and positioning of the remote
`
`device relative to the inductive power supply. EX1003, ¶¶112-117; Petition, 16-
`
`19; see also EX1004, [0006], [0035], [0041].
`
`Partovi-002 discloses using a “method of alignment of the coils or wires of
`
`the charger and mobile device for optimum power transfer.” EX1005, [0082]; see
`
`also Petition, 11-12, 18-19; EX1003, ¶100, 116. Specifically, Partovi-002
`
`discloses it can “be desirable to minimize the distance between the charger’s
`
`primary coil and the receiver[’]s coil or wire” to improve the receiver’s ability to
`
`receive power. EX1005, [0081]; EX1003, ¶116. Partovi-002 further discloses that
`
`magnets can be used to “better keep the coils aligned” to reduce a drop off in
`
`power transfer due to the offset of the coils. EX1005, [0135]; EX1003, ¶100.
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`Accordingly, as Dr. Szepesi testified, “a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`apply Partovi-002’s suggestions ... to provide a reliable and consistent transfer of
`
`power” to Baarman’s secondary circuit. EX1003, ¶116; Petition, 18-19.
`
`Further, Partovi-002 discloses that a predetermined “coil pattern” and
`
`magnets can be used to “provide an automatic method of bringing the two parts
`
`[pad and receiver/secondary] into alignment.” EX1005, [0135]; see also EX1003,
`
`¶117; Petition, 18-19. The automatic alignment of the two parts would “provide
`
`convenient, user-friendly methods of relative positioning/desired alignment …
`
`with a reduced likelihood of user error.” EX1003, ¶117; Petition, 19.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would recognize that positioning Baarman’s secondary
`
`inductive element in a close, predetermined arrangement relative to Baarman’s
`
`primary inductive element, as suggested by Partovi-002, would yield the
`
`predictable benefit of improving the magnetic coupling and efficiency of
`
`transferring power between Baarman’s primary and secondary circuits with
`
`reduced user error. Petition, 19; EX1003, ¶¶116-117.
`
`Thus, there is ample evidence demonstrating a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to combine Partovi-002 with Baarman. Patent Owner provides no
`
`evidence or reasoning to refute these reasons for combination or the predictable
`
`benefits of the proposed combination. Without evidence, Patent Owner’s
`
`Response amounts to nothing more than attorney argument insufficient to rebut the
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`Petition’s expert-supported case. The Federal Circuit has held that “attorney
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`argument ... is not evidence and cannot rebut ... evidence.” Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-
`
`Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Google, LLC v. MindbaseHQ
`
`LLC, IPR2021-01251, Paper 40 at 33 (Jan. 6, 2023) (“[M]ere attorney arguments
`
`and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled
`
`to little probative value”); Qualcomm Incorporated v. UNM Rainforest
`
`Innovations, IPR2021-00582, Paper 63 at 16 (Aug 15, 2022) (“Argument of
`
`counsel cannot take the place of objective evidence.”)
`
`Additionally, Partovi-002 was combined with Baarman only for purposes of
`
`element [1.1]. Petition, 17. And, even then, Partovi-002 was only referenced in
`
`the hypothetical situation that element [1.1] was narrowly construed. Petition, 17.
`
`Patent Owner made no arguments regarding Baarman’s teachings with
`
`respect to element [1.1]. See Petition, 16-17 (“Baarman thus plainly suggests that
`
`a second inductive element of the target unit should be positioned within a
`
`predetermined distance of a first inductive element of said base unit.”). Baarman
`
`teaches the principle that the positioning of two inductive elements can impact
`
`power transfer efficiency and incorporates Kuennen, which teaches a
`
`predetermined arrangement for seating a secondary coil on a main housing at a
`
`predetermined distance from a primary inductor (coil), thereby demonstrating that
`
`Baarman renders obvious element [1.1]. See Petition, 16-17; see also EX1004,
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`[0028], [0044]-[0045]; EX1009, 6, 14-15; EX1008, 3:22-28, Figs. 2A-2B and 4,
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`5:34-62, 8:29-48, 15:64-16:44.
`
`As Patent Owner has made no arguments countering Baarman’s teachings,
`
`there is no dispute that Baarman renders obvious element [1.1]. See Google LLC v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2020-00447, 2021 WL 1895465, at *3 n. 6 (May 11, 2021)
`
`(finding failure to include an argument in the Patent Owner Response waives the
`
`argument such that it cannot be raised in a sur-reply).
`
`Baarman and Partovi-413—Ground 1(B)
`B.
`The Petition and Expert Declaration establish it would have been obvious
`
`and predictable to modify Baarman’s primary circuit to use a DC to DC switching
`
`mode power supply circuit (topology) as suggested by Partovi-413. Petition, 43-
`
`46; EX1003, ¶¶192-193, ¶¶195-197. Again, Patent Owner’s Response fails to
`
`rebut this showing of obviousness because it ignores the explicit reasons for
`
`combination and benefits laid out by the Petition and Expert Declaration and
`
`provides zero evidence supporting its attorney arguments. See Response, 10-14.
`
`Baarman explains that its “invention may be implemented with essentially
`
`any inductive power supply that can be modified to provide inductive power at
`
`varying duty cycles.” EX1004, [0021]; EX1009, 4; Petition, 45-46. Further,
`
`Baarman notes that “other circuit components may be used to implement the
`
`switching circuit [318].” EX1004, [0026]; EX1009, 6; Petition, 45-46. Thus, by
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`Baarman’s own mandate, Baarman suggests that a POSITA would look to
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`“essentially any inductive power supply” that could provide inductive power at
`
`varying duty cycles to implement its invention. EX1004, [0021]; EX1009, 4; see
`
`also EX1003, ¶193; Petition, 45-46.
`
`The Petition, supported by the Expert Declaration and other evidence of
`
`record, outlines multiple reasons why a POSITA would have been motivated to use
`
`Partovi-413’s flyback power supply (an example of a DC to DC type switching
`
`mode power supply topology) to implement the power supply of Baarman’s
`
`primary circuit. Petition, 43-46; see also EX1003, ¶¶192-193. Both Baarman and
`
`Partovi-413 relate to power supply circuits that utilize inductive (wireless) power
`
`transfer, with both aimed at improving power transfer efficiency. EX1004, [0006];
`
`EX1009, 1; EX1006, Abstract (“to provide greater power transfer efficiency”),
`
`[0015]; EX1003, ¶192. Partovi-413 explains that “[i]n switching mode power
`
`supplies used today, the common geometries used are boost buck, flyback, boost,
`
`or a variation of these types” and that “by adjusting the duty cycle of the switching
`
`circuit, regulation of transferred power is achieved.” EX1006, [0246]; Petition, 43-
`
`44. Thus, Partovi-413’s geometries were the types of inductive power supply
`
`topologies known by POSITAs and contemplated by Baarman’s “essentially any
`
`inductive power supply.” EX1003, ¶193; see also EX1004, [0021]; EX1009, 4.
`
`Partovi-413’s flyback power supply would therefore have been a predictable
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`option for implementing the power supply of Baarman’s primary circuit. Petition,
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`43-46; EX1003, ¶¶192-193.
`
`Further, the proposed combination would improve Baarman’s primary
`
`circuit by requiring less circuitry. EX1003, ¶193. For example, using a flyback
`
`power supply, as suggested in Partovi-413, on Baarman’s primary side would have
`
`enabled generating a supply voltage for Baarman’s primary circuit, avoiding the
`
`need for a separate buck regulator 312. EX1003, ¶193. Accordingly, a POSITA
`
`would find the combination of Baarman and Partovi-413 desirous because it would
`
`“reduc[e] the expense required to construct the primary circuit.” EX1003, ¶193.
`
`Patent Owner provides no evidence or reasoning to refute that a POSITA
`
`would be motivated to combine Baarman and Partovi-413. Without evidence,
`
`Patent Owner’s Response amounts to nothing more than attorney argument
`
`insufficient to rebut the Petition’s expert-supported case. See Gemtron, 572 F.3d at
`
`1380 (“[U]nsworn attorney argument ... is not evidence and cannot rebut ...
`
`evidence.”).
`
`IV. GROUND 1A: CLAIMS 5 AND 16 ARE OBVIOUS
`A. The voltage and/or current sensed by Baarman’s secondary
`circuit is “associated with” its load (load circuit R11-C17).
`Claims 5 and 16, via their dependence on claims 4 and 15, respectively,
`
`require that the (measured) current or voltage that is being monitored be
`
`24
`
`

`

`
`“associated with” the load. Baarman teaches that the voltage/current sensed
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`(measured) by its secondary circuit is “associated with” its load (load circuit R11-
`
`C17) because the load’s voltage is affected and altered by, at least in part, the
`
`measured voltage/current. Petition, 29-30, EX1003, ¶¶134-135, ¶¶169-170.
`
`Baarman’s secondary circuit includes a signal resistor that communicates the
`
`measured voltage/current to a current sensor of the primary circuit via reflected
`
`impedance. EX1004, [0019] (“signal resistor 224 for communicating using
`
`reflected impedance”), [0030] (“Planned shunting of the signal resistor on the
`
`secondary ... may be used to provide information to the primary using reflected
`
`impedance detected with the current sensor 322.”), [0031] (“current transformer
`
`for sensing the reflected impedance of the secondary or remote device”), [0037];
`
`EX1009, 3, 8, 11. In particular, Baarman explains, via its incorporation of
`
`Baarman-392, that variations in the reflected impedance of the secondary circuit
`
`cause increased current through the primary coil of the primary circuit, which is
`
`detected by the current sensor. EX1012, [0014] (“[W]hen the current is shunted
`
`through the feedback signaling resistor in the secondary, the current through the
`
`secondary coil increases, which varies the reflected impedance of the secondary
`
`circuit resulting in increased current through the primary coil ... detected by the
`
`current sensor in the primary circuit.”). The current sensor’s detection of increased
`
`current through the primary coil causes temporary increases in the measured
`
`25
`
`

`

`
`voltage associated with the R-C load circuit R11-C17 (load). EX1012, [0014]
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`(“The increase in current through the primary coil is detected by the current sensor
`
`in the primary circuit, which could include a peak detector, thereby providing to
`
`the controller a feedback signal for detecting whether the battery is in an over-
`
`voltage or over-current state.”). Thus, the voltage at the load is a product of, at
`
`least in part, the measured voltage/current. Because the voltage is affected by the
`
`measured voltage/current, the measured voltage/current is associated with the load.
`
`Patent Owner argues that claims 4 and 15, and thereby claims 5 and 16,
`
`require that to be “associated with” the load in the base unit, the “measured current
`
`or voltage” must be measured in the base unit. Response, 16-17. Patent Owner’s
`
`Response, though, cites to no evidence to support such a requirement and amounts
`
`to nothing more than attorney argument insufficient to rebut the Petition’s expert-
`
`supported case. See Gemtron, 572 F.3d at 1380.
`
`Notably, nowhere do claims 4, 5, 15, or 16 require that the current or voltage
`
`be measured in the base unit (or the target unit). Claims 4 and 15, and thereby
`
`claims 5 and 16, respectively, require only that the (measured) current or voltage
`
`that is being monitored be associated with the load and impose no limitation on
`
`where the measurement or monitoring itself occurs.
`
`26
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00573 /U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`B.
`
`The “comparing/ [a comparison of] said measured current or
`voltage to a constant reference value” in claims 5 and 16 is not
`required to be used to “maximize an efficiency of power transfer”
`as argued by Patent Owner
`Baarman teaches, via its incorporation of Baarman-392, comparing sensed
`
`(measured) voltage/current to a predetermined level (“constant reference value”) to
`
`detect an “over-voltage or an over-current situation.” EX1012, [0035] (“output of
`
`an over-voltage detector 36 indicates whether the voltage across the battery 34 is
`
`above a predetermined level”) (“output of an over-current detector 40 indicates
`
`whether the current to the battery 34 is above a predetermined amount”), [0036];
`
`EX1003, ¶140. When an over-voltage/over-current condition is detected,
`
`Baarman’s frequency control mechanism adjust