Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 32
`Date: September 11, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KRISTINA M. KALAN, 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: September 11, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KRISTINA M. KALAN, 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)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting
`inter partes review of claims 1–22 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’537 patent”). Scramoge Technology Ltd. (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9). With our authorization provided in
`an e-mail dated June 22, 2022, Petitioner filed a preliminary Reply
`(Paper 10) to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and Patent Owner filed
`a preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 11) 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 12 (“Inst. Dec.”). Thereafter, Patent Owner filed a Response
`(Paper 17, “PO Resp.”) to the Petition, Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 19,
`“Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 20, “PO Sur-
`reply”). On June 15, 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). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons that
`follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1–22 and 28 of the ’537 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify several federal district court cases, including
`Scramoge Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01071-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.). Pet. 80–81; Paper 29, 2 (Patent Owner’s Second Amended
`Mandatory Notices).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`B. The ’537 Patent
`The ’537 patent describes “inductively supplying electrical power.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:6–8. To illustrate, Figure 1 of the ’537 patent is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`Figure 1 shows inductive DC-DC converter circuit 100, which includes base
`unit 102 and target unit 103. Id. at 2:53–54, 3:22–27.
`Base unit 102 includes DC voltage supply 104, which provides input
`DC voltage Vin. Ex. 1001, 3:31–33. Base unit 102 also includes load 106,
`which includes internal node 108. Id. at 3:33–34. DC voltage supply 104
`and load 106 are electrically coupled through converter sub-circuit 110. Id.
`at 3:39–40. Converter sub-circuit 110 includes first inductive element 112
`and switching network 114, which directs current to or from inductive
`element 112 at an operating frequency. Id. at 3:41–44. Switching
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`network 114 includes input node 116, which receives voltage signal Vctrl.
`Id. at 3:45–48. Internal node 108 of load 106 and input node 116 of
`switching network 114 are electrically coupled through controller element
`(CTRL) 118, which monitors voltage Vnode at node 108, comparing it to
`voltage Vref, and adjusts voltage Vctrl at node 116 based on the comparison.
`Id. at 3:48–53.
`Target unit 103 includes second inductive element 120, rectifying
`element 122, and load 126. Ex. 1001, 3:61–4:6. Second inductive
`element 120 is electrically coupled to rectifying element 122. Id. at 3:61–66.
`Target unit 103 may be electrically coupled to an electronic device (e.g.,
`battery, display unit, keypad) to provide power. Id. at 3:27–31.
`In operation, first inductive element 112 serves as a primary coil for
`transferring power to target unit 103 via second inductive element 120,
`which serves as a secondary coil. Ex. 1001, 3:59–64. Second inductive
`element 120 generates a time-varying signal in response to coupling with
`first inductive element 112. Id. at 4:1–3. Rectifying element 122 generates
`a DC voltage signal between its node 124 and its node 125 for the time-
`varying signal generated by second inductive element 120. Id. at 3:65–4:3.
`The DC voltage can then be applied across second load 126 to produce
`output DC voltage Vout2. Id. at 4:3–6.
`The ’537 patent explains that to enhance power transfer efficiency,
`switching network 114 is used to adjust the operating frequency of first
`inductive element 112 until the oscillation of second inductive element 120
`is induced at the self-resonant frequency. Ex. 1001, 4:20–42. The operating
`frequency of first inductive element 112 for inducing the self-resonant
`oscillation in second inductive element 120 can vary depending on the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`separation between the two inductive elements as well as the configuration
`of rectifying element 122 and second load 126. Id. at 4:42–50.
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 1–22 and 28 of
`the ’537 patent, where claims 1, 12, and 28 are independent. Claim 1,
`reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims under challenge.
`1. A method for inductively transferring power from a base unit
`providing input power, to a target unit providing output power,
`where the base unit and the target unit are electrically isolated,
`comprising:
`positioning a second inductive element of said target unit
`within a predetermined distance of a first inductive
`element of said base unit;
`applying a time varying electric current to said first inductive
`element to produce a time varying magnetic field, said
`time varying magnetic field induces an electric current in
`said second inductive element;
`monitoring at least one parameter indicative of an efficiency
`of power transfer from said base unit to said target unit;
`automatically adjusting at least one characteristic of said time
`varying electric current responsive to said parameter to
`maximize an efficiency of power transfer from said base
`unit to said target unit.
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–22 and 28 of the ’537 patent on the
`following six grounds. Pet. 6–76. We instituted inter partes review on all
`grounds presented in the Petition. Inst. Dec. 36.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`1–5, 8–16, 19–22, 28
`6, 7, 17, 18
`
`35 U.S.C. §1
`103
`103
`
`References
`Baarman,2 Partovi-0023
`Baarman, Partovi-002, Partovi-
`4134
`Flowerdew5
`102
`1, 2, 8–11, 28
`Flowerdew, Jang6
`103
`3–5, 12–16, 19–22
`Flowerdew, Partovi-413
`103
`6, 7
`Flowerdew, Jang, Partovi-413
`103
`17, 18
`We refer to the first two grounds as the Baarman-based grounds and to the
`remaining four grounds as the Flowerdew-based grounds. In support of its
`asserted grounds, Petitioner relies on a Declaration of Dr. Tamas Szepesi,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1003).
`
`
`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.
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, effective March 16,
`2013. Because the application from which the ’537 patent issued was filed
`before this date, the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply.
`2 Baarman et al., U.S. Publ’n No. 2009/0174263 A1, published July 9, 2009
`(Ex. 1004).
`3 Partovi, U.S. Publ’n No. 2007/0279002 A1, published Dec. 6, 2007
`(Ex. 1005).
`4 Partovi et al., U.S. Publ’n No. 2009/0096413 A1, published Apr. 16, 2009
`(Ex. 1006).
`5 Flowerdew et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,211,986 B1, issued May 1, 2007
`(Ex. 1007).
`6 Jang et al., U.S. Publ’n No. 2004/0218406 A1, published Nov. 4, 2004
`(Ex. 1010).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`§ 42.100(b) (2021). Applying that standard, we construe a 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).
`To the extent the parties dispute the meaning of a claim term, we
`address the dispute below in our analysis of whether the prior art meets the
`claim limitations.
`
`
`B. Anticipation by Flowerdew
`We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds, starting with the
`Flowerdew-based grounds. Petitioner asserts that Flowerdew anticipates
`claims 1, 2, 8–11, and 28 of the ’537 patent. Pet. 47–61. Patent Owner does
`not respond. See generally PO Resp. For the reasons explained below, we
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
`evidence that Flowerdew anticipates claims 1, 2, 8–11, and 28 of
`the ’537 patent.
`Before addressing Petitioner’s analysis, we provide an overview of the
`asserted prior art, Flowerdew.
`
`
`1. Overview of Flowerdew
`Flowerdew describes inductive battery chargers. Ex. 1007, 1:6–7. To
`illustrate, Figure 2 of Flowerdew is reproduced below.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows a charging system that includes primary unit (charger) 302
`and secondary unit 304. Id. at 4:60–64. Primary unit 302 includes power
`source 306, controller 308, oscillator 310, and charging coils 312, 314. Id.
`at 5:16–17, 5:38–41. Secondary unit 304 includes receive coil 316,
`rectifier 318, and rechargeable battery 320, which may be charged by
`primary unit 302. Id. at 4:66–67, 5:61–6:2. Secondary unit 304 may be a
`small electronic device, such as a wireless headset, a mobile telephone, a
`personal digital assistant, or a camera. Id. at 5:1–4.
`In operation, secondary unit 304 is placed near primary unit 302 so
`that the magnetic flux from the magnetic field created by charging coils 312,
`314 passes through receive coil 316. Ex. 1007, 5:49–52; see also id.
`at 8:26–37. The magnetic flux in turn induces a voltage across receive
`coil 316, which results in an induced current that charges battery 320. Id.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`at 5:56–58; see also id. at 8:38–50. A meter may be connected across
`receive coil 316 to display the degree of coupling. Id. at 5:58–60.
`Flowerdew explains that “[t]he EMF induced in a coil depends
`strongly on the angle that it makes to the magnetic field.” Ex. 1007, 6:18–
`20. According to Flowerdew, “the maximum possible induction (coupling)
`occurs when the field passes through the coil,” which “occurs when the
`direction of the field is orthogonal to the plane of the coil.” Id. at 6:20–24.
`To illustrate, Figure 10 of Flowerdew is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 10 shows the placement of secondary unit 304 on charging
`surface 357 of primary unit 302.7 Id. at 11:25–27. When secondary unit 304
`is placed on dished charging surface 357, secondary unit 304 will be aligned
`along one axis such that the coupling between the receive coil in secondary
`unit 304 and charging coils in charger 302 is maximized. Id. at 11:27–32.
`
`
`
`7 Flowerdew’s Figure 10 shows element 378 as being placed on charging
`surface 357 of primary unit 302, but Flowerdew’s specification describes
`secondary unit 304 as being placed on charging surface 357 of primary
`unit 302. Ex. 1007, 11:25–32, Fig. 10.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`2. Analysis of Claims 1, 2, 8–11, and 28
`We discuss claims 1, 2, 8–11, and 28 of the ’537 patent.
`
`
`a. Independent Claim 1
`Claim 1 is directed to a “method for inductively transferring power”
`comprising a “positioning” step, an “applying” step, a “monitoring” step,
`and an “automatically adjusting” step. Petitioner designates these steps as
`elements 1.1 through 1.4. We address the recited preamble and steps in turn.
`
`
`i. Preamble
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] method for inductively
`transferring power from a base unit providing input power, to a target unit
`providing output power, where the base unit and the target unit are
`electrically isolated.” For the preamble, Petitioner identifies Flowerdew’s
`primary unit 302 as a “base unit” and Flowerdew’s secondary unit 304 as a
`“target unit.” Pet. 49. As support, Petitioner directs us to Flowerdew’s
`teaching that its “invention relates to inductive battery chargers,” where
`“[s]econdary unit 304 includes a rechargeable battery 320 to be charged by
`charger 302.” Ex. 1007, 1:67, 4:66–67, Fig. 2 (cited by Pet. 49).
`Although we do not determine whether the preamble of claim 1 is
`limiting, we are persuaded that Flowerdew teaches the subject matter of the
`preamble. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for the
`preamble. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`ii. Element 1.1: “positioning” step
`Claim 1 recites “positioning a second inductive element of said target
`unit within a predetermined distance of a first inductive element of said base
`unit.” For this step, which Petitioner designates as element 1.1, Petitioner
`identifies Flowerdew’s charging coils 312, 314 as a “first inductive element”
`and Flowerdew’s receive coil 316 as a “second inductive element.” Pet. 49,
`49–50 n.2. As support, Petitioner directs us to Flowerdew’s teaching that
`“the charger takes the form of a shallow concave (herein also referred to as
`‘dished’ or a ‘dish’) [ . . . ], which whilst substantially flat and thin, develops
`a magnetic field which is substantially horizontal rather than perpendicular
`to its surface, which is typically the case if a coil were wound in the same
`plane as a plate.” Id. at 49–50 (quoting Ex. 1007, 4:49–59). Petitioner
`further directs us to Flowerdew’s teaching that placing secondary unit 304
`on a dished charging surface of primary unit 302 will align secondary
`unit 304 such that the coupling between the receive coil in secondary
`unit 304 and the charging coils in charger 302 is maximized. Id. at 50
`(citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–32). Petitioner notes that Flowerdew teaches that
`the charging surface of primary unit 302 may include markers indicating a
`preferred alignment or orientation for items placed on that part of the surface
`to receive power from charger 302. Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 1007, 7:57–61).
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Flowerdew teaches the recited positioning step of claim 1. Patent Owner
`does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this step. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`iii. Element 1.2: “applying” step
`Claim 1 further recites “applying a time varying electric current to
`said first inductive element to produce a time varying magnetic field, said
`time varying magnetic field induces an electric current in said second
`inductive element.” For this step, which Petitioner designates as
`element 1.2, Petitioner directs us to Flowerdew’s teaching that “[a]n
`alternating current signal of prescribed frequency generated in oscillator 310
`is supplied to charging coil 312 and charging coil 314,” and, “[a]s a result,
`an alternating magnetic field is generated by charging coil 312 and charging
`coil 314 above charging surface 357 of charger 302.” Ex. 1007, 8:32–37
`(cited by Pet. 54). Flowerdew further teaches that “[t]he alternating
`magnetic field generates an induced electromotive force in the secondary
`unit coil 316 arranged in the secondary unit 304.” Id. at 8:38–40 (cited by
`Pet. 54). As discussed above, Flowerdew’s charging coils 312, 314
`correspond to the recited first inductive element and Flowerdew’s receive
`coil 316 corresponds to the recited second inductive element. Pet. 49, 54.
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Flowerdew teaches the recited applying step of claim 1. Patent Owner does
`not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this step. See generally PO Resp.
`
`iv. Elements 1.3, 1.4: “monitoring” step, “automatically adjusting” step
`Claim 1 further recites “monitoring at least one parameter indicative
`of an efficiency of power transfer from said base unit to said target unit.”
`Petitioner designates this step as element 1.3. Pet. 54. Additionally, claim 1
`recites “automatically adjusting at least one characteristic of said time
`varying electric current responsive to said parameter to maximize an
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`efficiency of power transfer from said base unit to said target unit.”
`Petitioner designates this step as element 1.4. Id. We discuss these two
`steps together.
`Petitioner directs us to where Flowerdew states,
`Two element inductive charging systems typically create a
`resonance in both the transmitting and the receiving coils for a
`given frequency. The resonance maximizes the current, and
`hence the flux density from a given drive voltage, and maximizes
`the receive voltage for a given intercepted flux. . . . When the
`number and type of secondary units being charged is variable,
`the power extracted from the field and the amount of permeable
`material and its distribution are ill defined and therefore the
`inductance and loss resistance seen in the resonant system are
`also ill defined. Changes in the inductance or loss resistance
`resulting from placement of one or[] more secondary units must
`be compensated for.
`Ex. 1007, 12:22–38 (cited by Pet. 54). To compensate for these changes,
`Flowerdew uses a resonance tuning circuit that varies the frequency of
`charging coils 312, 314 when secondary unit 304 is placed on the charging
`surface of primary unit 302, thereby keeping the system resonant. Id.
`at 12:58–62 (cited by Pet. 54–55). A sense coil near the driven coil provides
`a feedback signal to a microcontroller that produces the signal to the driver,
`and software allows for the output frequency to be adjusted to maximize the
`signal from the sense coil. Id. at 13:24–30 (cited by Pet. 55). Flowerdew
`explains that “[a]pplication of a variable frequency is predicated on the basis
`that the high efficiency achieved by driving a resonant system is needed for
`effective operation.” Id. at 13:30–35 (cited by Pet. 55).
`Petitioner contends that “Flowerdew thus discloses a microcontroller
`of the charger 302 (base unit) that monitors a ‘feedback signal’ from the
`sense coil, and that automatically adjusts an output frequency (at least one
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`characteristic of said time varying electric current) responsive to the
`‘feedback signal’ to achieve and maintain operation at the ‘resonant’
`frequency of the coupled inductor system,” where “the ‘feedback signal’
`from the sense coil constitutes ‘at least one parameter indicative of an
`efficiency of power transfer from said base unit to said target unit.’”
`Pet. 55. According to Petitioner, “the drive frequency is adjusted in
`response to the ‘feedback signal’ to ‘maximize an efficiency of power
`transfer’ from the charger 302 (base unit) to the secondary unit 304 (target
`unit).” Id. at 55–56. Petitioner asserts that “operating at the resonant
`frequency maximizes power transfer efficiency.” Id. at 56 (citing Ex. 1007,
`12:24–26, 13:31–32).
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Flowerdew teaches the recited monitoring and adjusting steps of claim 1.
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for these steps. See
`generally PO Resp.
`
`
`b. Dependent Claim 2
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein said characteristic
`comprises at least one of a frequency of said time varying current and a duty
`cycle of said time varying current.” For this limitation, Petitioner cross-
`references its discussion of elements 1.3 and 1.4, and asserts that
`“Flowerdew discloses automatic adjustments to a ‘frequency’ of the time
`varying current (said characteristic) applied to the primary inductive
`element (e.g., coils 312, 314).” Pet. 56. As discussed above with respect to
`elements 1.3 and 1.4, Flowerdew uses a resonance tuning circuit to vary the
`frequency of charging coils 312, 314 when secondary unit 304 is placed on
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`the charging surface of primary unit 302, thereby keeping the system
`resonant. Ex. 1007, 12:58–62 (cited by Pet. 54–55). A sense coil near the
`driven coil provides a feedback signal to a microcontroller that produces the
`signal to the driver, and software allows for the output frequency to be
`adjusted to maximize the signal from the sense coil. Id. at 13:24–30 (cited
`by Pet. 55). Flowerdew explains that “[a]pplication of a variable frequency
`is predicated on the basis that the high efficiency achieved by driving a
`resonant system is needed for effective operation.” Id. at 13:30–35 (cited by
`Pet. 55).
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Flowerdew teaches the recited limitation of claim 2. Patent Owner does not
`dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`c. Dependent Claim 8
`Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein said automatically
`adjusting step further comprises automatically adjusting said characteristic
`to induce an oscillation in said second inductive element at a frequency to be
`approximately equal to a self-resonant frequency of said second inductive
`element.” For this limitation, Petitioner again cross-references its discussion
`of elements 1.3 and 1.4, and asserts that “Flowerdew’s charger 302 (base
`unit) automatically selectively adjusts the drive frequency (said
`characteristic) applied to a primary coil 312/314 (first inductive element) to
`induce oscillating currents in the secondary coil 316 (second inductive
`element) ‘to keep the system resonant’ and maximize power transfer
`efficiency.” Pet. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1007, 12:22–63, 13:22–51). As
`discussed above with respect to elements 1.3 and 1.4, Flowerdew’s
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`resonance tuning circuit varies the frequency of charging coils 312, 314
`when secondary unit 304 is placed on the charging surface of primary
`unit 302, thereby keeping the system resonant. Ex. 1007, 12:58–62 (cited by
`Pet. 54–55). A sense coil near the driven coil provides a feedback signal to a
`microcontroller that produces the signal to the driver, and software allows
`for the output frequency to be adjusted to maximize the signal from the
`sense coil. Id. at 13:24–30 (cited by Pet. 55). According to Flowerdew,
`“[a]pplication of a variable frequency is predicated on the basis that the high
`efficiency achieved by driving a resonant system is needed for effective
`operation.” Id. at 13:30–35 (cited by Pet. 55).
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Flowerdew teaches the recited limitation of claim 8. Patent Owner does not
`dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`d. Dependent Claim 9
`Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites,
`responsive to a re-positioning of said second inductive element
`from a first position to a second position, automatically
`selectively re-adjusting said characteristic to maximize said
`efficiency, wherein said first position differs from said second
`position with regard to at least one characteristic selected from
`the group consisting of distance and orientation relative to said
`first inductive element.
`For this limitation, Petitioner asserts that “Flowerdew expressly recognizes
`that ‘[c]hanges in the inductance or loss resistance resulting from placement
`of one or[] more secondary units must be compensated for,’” and that “[t]o
`compensate for such changes, Flowerdew’s primary charging unit monitors
`a ‘feedback signal’ from a ‘sense coil near a driven coil,’ and automatically
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`adjusts the ‘output frequency . . . to maximize the signal from the sense coil’
`thereby ‘keep[ing] the system resonant.’” Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1007, 12:36–
`38, 12:61–63, 13:23–33, 13:41–51). Petitioner contends,
`Since the inductance or l[o]ss resistance of a resonant system,
`and its resonant frequency, change based on the degree of
`coupling between the primary and secondary coils (which itself
`is a function of the position––including distance and/or
`orientation––of the secondary coil with respect to a primary coil),
`Flowerdew’s system would compensate responsive to a re-
`positioning of the secondary 316 from a first position to a second
`position by automatically selectively re-adjusting the drive
`frequency (said characteristic) to maintain resonance and
`maximize power transfer efficiency.
`Id. at 57–58 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:62–64, 5:52–56, 6:20–23). Petitioner
`additionally cross-references its discussion of elements 1.3 and 1.4. Id.
`at 58. As discussed above with respect to elements 1.3 and 1.4, Flowerdew
`teaches that “[a]pplication of a variable frequency is predicated on the basis
`that the high efficiency achieved by driving a resonant system is needed for
`effective operation.” Ex. 1007, 13:30–35 (cited by Pet. 55).
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Flowerdew teaches the recited limitation of claim 9. Patent Owner does not
`dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`e. Dependent Claim 10
`Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites “responsive to a
`substitution of a target unit with a different target unit, automatically
`selectively re-adjusting said characteristic to maximize said efficiency.” For
`this limitation, Petitioner asserts that “Flowerdew discloses that the
`charger 302 (base unit) is configured to drive a primary coil 312/314 (first
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`inductive element) at a prescribed frequency, and to automatically adjust the
`frequency to ‘maintain resonance when the inductance is altered by the
`addition of a secondary unit 304.’” Pet. 58 (citing Ex. 1007, 2:51–53,
`12:22–63, 13:22–51). Petitioner further directs us to Flowerdew’s teaching
`that its “invention is capable of charging a variety and/or plurality of
`secondary units,” and asserts that Flowerdew’s “system is configured to
`respond to detected changes in the ‘number and type of secondary units
`being charged.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 12:30–42, 13:41–51). According to
`Petitioner, “changes in the type or number of secondary units being charged
`can ‘create a change in inductance and an associated increase in losses,’
`which is detected (e.g., via the ‘feedback signal’ from a sense coil or explicit
`communication between the charger/primary unit and the secondary unit(s))
`[and] causes a change in the drive coil frequency to ‘maintain resonance’ at
`the new resonant frequency of the system.” Id. at 58–59 (citing Ex. 1007,
`13:22–51, 14:30–52). Petitioner contends, “[t]hus, Flowerdew discloses that
`the charging unit 302 is configured, responsive to a substitution of a target
`unit with a different target unit (e.g., substitution of a secondary 304 of a
`first ‘type’ with a secondary 304 of a second ‘type’ having different
`inductance/loss characteristics), to automatically selectively re-adjust the
`drive frequency (said characteristic) to maintain resonance and maximize
`said efficiency of power transfer from the charger 304 to the substituted
`secondary unit 306.” Id. at 59. As noted above regarding elements 1.3
`and 1.4, Flowerdew teaches that “[a]pplication of a variable frequency is
`predicated on the basis that the high efficiency achieved by driving a
`resonant system is needed for effective operation.” Ex. 1007, 13:30–35
`(cited by Pet. 55).
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Flowerdew teaches the recited limitation of claim 10. Patent Owner does
`not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`f. Dependent Claim 11
`Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites “rectifying an output
`current induced in said second inductive element to produce a DC output.”
`For this limitation, Petitioner directs us to Flowerdew’s teaching that,
`“[w]ithin secondary unit 304, the secondary unit coil 316 connects to a
`rectifier which serves as an A.C. to D.C. converter.” Ex. 1007, 5:61–63
`(cited by Pet. 59). As discussed above, Flowerdew’s coil 316 corresponds to
`the recited second inductive element. Pet. 49.
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Flowerdew teaches the recited limitation of claim 11. Patent Owner does
`not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`g. Independent Claim 28
`Claim 28 is directed to a “method for inductively transferring power”
`comprising a “positioning” step, an “applying” step, a “monitoring” step,
`and an “automatically adjusting” step. The preamble and positioning step
`recited in claim 28 are similar to the preamble and positioning step recited in
`claim 1. In this regard, Petitioner relies on its discussion of claim 1 for its
`analysis of claim 28. Pet. 60. Similarly, our analysis of claim 1 applies to
`claim 28.
`The applying, monitoring, and automatically adjusting steps recited in
`claim 28 are similar to the applying, monitoring, and automatically adjusting
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`steps recited in claim 1, but include additional requirements. We address
`these steps, including the additional requirements, in turn.
`
`
`i. “applying” step
`Claim 28 recites “applying a time varying electric current to said first
`inductive element to produce a time varying magnetic field having an
`operating frequency, said time varying magnetic field inducing an electric
`current in said second inductive element.” Unlike claim 1, claim 28 requires
`the time varying magnetic field to have an operating frequency.
`With respect to the applying step of claim 28, Petitioner cross-
`references its analysis for claim element 1.2. Pet. 60. As discussed above
`with respect to claim element 1.2, Petitioner directs us to Flowerdew’s
`teaching that “[a]n alternating current signal of prescribed frequency
`generated in oscillator 310 is supplied to charging coil 312 and charging
`coil 314,” and, “[a]s a result, an alternating magnetic field is generated by
`charging coil 312 and charging coil 314 above charging surface 357 of
`charger 302.” Ex. 1007, 8:32–37 (cited by Pet. 54). Flowerdew further
`teaches that “[t]he alternating magnetic field generates an induced
`electromotive force in the secondary unit coil 316 arranged in the secondary
`unit 304.” Id. at 8:38–40 (cited by Pet. 54). Flowerdew’s charging
`coils 312, 314 correspond to the recited first inductive element and
`Flowerdew’s receive coil 316 corresponds to the recited second inductive
`element. Pet. 49, 54.
`For the additional requirement that the time varying magnetic field
`has an operating frequency, Petitioner directs us to Flowerdew’s description
`of using a resonance tuning circuit for operating the charging coils in a
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`resonance circuit with a rechargeable device placed on the charging surface.
`Ex. 1007, 12:38–42 (cited by Pet. 60). Flowerdew teaches that “the
`frequency is changed to keep the system resonant.” Id. at 12:61–63 (cited by
`Pet. 60). Petitioner argues that the resulting frequency satisfies the operating
`frequency requirement. Pet. 60.
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, and for the reasons
`given above with respect to claim element 1.2 (see supra Part III.B.2.a.iii),
`we are persuaded that Flowerdew teaches the recited applying step of
`claim 28. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this step.
`See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`ii. “monitoring” step, “automatically adjusting” step
`Claim 28 further recites “monitoring at least one parameter of an
`electronic component of said base unit that is indicative of an efficiency of
`power transfer from said base unit to said target unit.” This step is similar to
`the monitoring step recited in claim 1, except that it requires specifically
`monitoring a parameter of an electronic component of said base unit.
`Claim 28 also recites “automatically adjusting said operating frequency
`based on a value of said parameter to maximize said efficiency of power
`transfer from said base u
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
