`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: September 13, 2022
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Dismissing Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`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”). Petitioner additionally filed a Motion for
`Joinder (Paper 3, “Joinder Motion” or “Joinder Mot.”) seeking to join this
`proceeding with Fantasia Trading LLC d/b/a Ankerdirect v. Scramoge
`Technology Ltd., IPR2022-00499 (“the Anker IPR”), which also concerns
`the ’537 patent. Scramoge Technology Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization
`provided in an e-mail dated June 22, 2022, Petitioner filed a preliminary
`Reply (Paper 10, “Reply”) to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and
`Patent Owner filed a preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 11, “Sur-reply”) to
`Petitioner’s preliminary Reply. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review
`may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review
`as to all the challenged claims of the ’537 patent based on all the grounds
`presented.
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify several related federal district court cases,
`including Scramoge Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-21-cv-
`01071-ADA (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 81; Paper 5, 3–4 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`Notices). The parties also identify several related inter partes review
`proceedings. Pet. 81; Paper 5, 2–3.
`
`
`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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`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
`network 114 includes input node 116, which receives voltage signal Vctrl.
`Id. at 3:45–48. Internal node 108 and input node 116 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 such 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`frequency of first inductive element 112 for inducing the self-resonant
`oscillation in second inductive element 120 can vary depending on the
`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
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–22 and 28 of the ’537 patent.
`Claims 1, 12, and 28 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims
`challenged:
`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.
`Ex. 1001, 9:64–10:14.
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–22 and 28 of the ’537 patent on the
`following six grounds. Pet. 6–76.
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §1
`1–5, 8–16, 19–22, 28
`103
`6, 7, 17, 18
`103
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`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
`arguments, Petitioner relies on a Declaration of Dr. Tamas Szepesi, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 1003).
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`A. Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Before addressing Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability, we
`note that Patent Owner urges us to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a) to deny institution based on the above-identified parallel litigation
`in the District Court for the Western District of Texas. Prelim. Resp. 3; see
`also supra Part II.A.
`Under § 314(a), the Director has discretion to deny institution of an
`inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial
`on behalf of the Director.”); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d
`1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled
`to institute an IPR proceeding.”). In exercising that discretion on behalf of
`the Director, the Board may consider the state of a parallel district court
`proceeding as a “factor that weighs in favor of denying the Petition under
`§ 314(a).” NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs, Inc., IPR2018-00752,
`Paper 8, 20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential). When considering the
`impact of parallel litigation, the Board seeks, among other things, to
`minimize the duplication of work to resolve the same issue. See id. at 19–
`20.
`
`The Board has identified a nonexclusive list of factors “relat[ing] to
`whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits” favor discretionary denial in
`view of parallel district court litigation. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-
`00019, Paper 11, 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential); see also Interim
`Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with
`Parallel District Court Litigation, at 1–2 (June 21, 2022) (“Interim
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`Procedure”).7 Among the factors is proximity of the court’s trial date to the
`Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision. Id. at 6.
`Here, Patent Owner contends that “[t]he statutory deadline for a final
`written decision in this proceeding is September 16, 2023, which can be
`extended to March 16, 2024 for good cause or in the case of joinder,”
`whereas “the pending case is set for trial on July 31, 2023.” Prelim. Resp. 5.
`According to Patent Owner, “trial in the district court litigation will occur
`months before the deadline for a final written decision.” Id. Patent Owner
`adds that the “standing order governing proceedings in patent cases
`expressly states that ‘[a]fter the trial date is set, the Court will not move the
`trial date except in extreme situations.’” Id. at 6 (quoting Ex. 2006, 9
`(emphasis added by Patent Owner)).
`Petitioner counters that “[t]he most recent statistics show a median
`time-to-trial in the Western District of Texas of 27.2 months.” Reply 2
`(citing Ex. 1020, 5). Applying this time period, Petitioner asserts that “[t]he
`co-pending district court case was filed in the Western District of Texas on
`October 15, 2021,” and, “[a]ccordingly, the projected trial date for purposes
`of Fintiv is January of 2024,” which is “four months after the Board’s Final
`Written Decision is due on September 16, 2023.” Id.
`In response, Patent Owner reiterates that the district court “will not
`move the trial date except in extreme situations.” Sur-reply 2 (quoting
`Ex. 2006, 9 (emphasis added by Patent Owner)). Patent Owner also asserts
`that “Petitioner, in addition to ignoring Patent Owner’s evidence, does not
`
`
`7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
`interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_
`memo_20220621_.pdf.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`cite to anything other than the statistics.” Id. In particular, Patent Owner
`states that Board procedure “dictates the PTAB should also consider
`additional factors ‘such as the number of cases before the judge in the
`parallel litigation and the speed and availability of other case dispositions.’”
`Id. (citing Interim Procedure 9). We note that neither party presents
`evidence relating to such additional factors.
`In considering proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s
`projected statutory deadline for a final written decision, we “will consider
`the speed with which the district court case may come to trial and be
`resolved,” and we “will weigh this factor against exercising discretion to
`deny institution under Fintiv if the median time-to-trial is around the same
`time or after the projected statutory deadline for [our] final written
`decision.” Interim Procedure 9. Here, our projected statutory deadline for a
`final written decision is September 16, 2023. Based on a median time-to-
`trial of 27.2 months in the Western District of Texas, the expected trial date
`in the parallel litigation is in January 2024, which is about four months after
`our projected statutory deadline for a final written decision. This factor thus
`weighs against exercising discretion to deny the Petition.
`The remaining Fintiv factors do not sufficiently outweigh our
`consideration of the proximity of the court’s expected trial date to the
`Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision to lead us to
`exercise discretion to deny institution. Accordingly, under the
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny
`institution under § 314(a) in view of the parallel litigation.8
`
`
`B. 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) (2019). That standard involves construing claims in accordance
`with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as would have been
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`pertaining to the patent. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`Petitioner asserts that “no formal construction is ‘necessary to resolve’
`the anticipation/obviousness issues raised in this Petition.” Pet. 5–6 (citing
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
`2011)). Patent Owner does not respond. See generally Prelim. Resp. For
`purposes of this Decision, we conclude that no claim term requires express
`interpretation at this time 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).
`
`
`
`8 The parties informed us by email that “[o]n Friday, September 9, the
`district court issued a new scheduling order. The trial date has been moved
`from July of 2023 to Oct 31, 2023.” Ex. 3002. This new development does
`not change the outcome of our analysis. The median time-to-trial remains
`the same.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`C. 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 Prelim. Resp. For the reasons explained below,
`we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this asserted ground.
`Before addressing Petitioner’s analysis, we provide an overview of the
`asserted prior art, Flowerdew.
`
`
`1. Flowerdew
`Flowerdew describes inductive battery chargers. Ex. 1007, 1:6–7. To
`illustrate, Figure 2 of Flowerdew is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`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.
`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.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 10 shows the placement of secondary unit 304 on charging
`surface 357 of primary unit 302. 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.
`
`
`2. Independent Claim 1
`Turning to the claims, we discuss independent claims 1 and 28 in
`detail, starting with claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to a “method for
`inductively transferring power” that comprises a “positioning” step, an
`“applying” step, a “monitoring” step, and an “automatically adjusting” step.
`We address the recited preamble and steps in turn.
`
`
`a. 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.” Ex. 1001, 9:64–67. With respect to the preamble,
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`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 where Flowerdew teaches 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).
`At this stage of the proceeding, we do not determine whether the
`preamble of claim 1 is limiting. Regardless of whether it is limiting,
`however, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for
`purposes of this Decision that Flowerdew teaches the preamble of claim 1.
`
`
`b. “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.” Ex. 1001, 10:1–3. 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 where Flowerdew teaches
`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
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`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
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that
`Flowerdew teaches the recited positioning step of claim 1.
`
`
`c. “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.” Ex. 1001, 10:4–7. For this step, which Petitioner
`designates as element 1.2, Petitioner directs us to where Flowerdew teaches
`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.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that
`Flowerdew teaches the recited applying step of claim 1.
`
`
`d. “monitoring” step and “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.”
`Ex. 1001, 10:8–10. 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 efficiency of power transfer from said base unit to
`said target unit.” Ex. 1001, 10:11–14. Petitioner designates this step as
`element 1.4. Pet. 54. 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.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`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
`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
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that
`Flowerdew teaches the recited monitoring and adjusting steps of claim 1.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`3. Independent Claim 28
`Claim 28 is directed to a “method for inductively transferring power”
`that comprises 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
`steps recited in claim 1, but include additional requirements. We address
`these steps, including the additional requirements, in turn.
`
`
`a. “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.” Ex. 1001, 12:50–54. 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
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`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 where Flowerdew
`describes using a resonance tuning circuit for operating the charging coils in
`a 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.C.2.c), we
`are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of this
`Decision that Flowerdew teaches the recited applying step of claim 28.
`
`
`b. “monitoring” step and “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.” Ex. 1001, 12:55–57.
`This step is similar to the monitoring step recited in claim 1, except that it
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`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 unit to said target unit.” Id. at 12:58–60. This
`step is similar to the automatically adjusting step recited in claim 1, except
`that it requires specifically automatically adjusting said operating frequency.
`Petitioner cross-references its analysis for claim elements 1.3 and 1.4.
`Pet. 60–61. As discussed above with respect to claim elements 1.3 and 1.4,
`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. Ex. 1007,
`12:58–62 (cited by Pet. 54–55). Flowerdew teaches that 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. Ex. 1007, 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 discloses a microcontroller in the
`charger 302 that monitors a ‘feedback signal’ (at least one parameter) of a
`‘sense coil’ (electronic component of said base unit) that is indicative of
`resonance and thus efficiency of power transfer from the charger 302 (base
`unit) to the secondary unit 304 (target unit). Pet. 60. As noted above,
`Flowerdew teaches that software allows for the output frequency to be
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`adjusted to maximize the signal from the sense coil. Ex. 1007, 13:24–30
`(cited by Pet. 55).
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, and for the reasons
`given above with respect to claim elements 1.3 and 1.4, (see supra
`Part III.C.2.d), we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for
`purposes of this Decision that Flowerdew teaches the recited monitoring and
`automatically adjusting steps of claim 28.
`
`
`4. Summary
`In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that Flowerdew anticipates
`claims 1 and 28. Claims 2 and 8–11 depend from claim 1. Having reviewed
`Petitioner’s arguments asserting that Flowerdew anticipates claims 2 and 8–
`11, (see Pet. 56–59), we also determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion as to these dependent
`claims.
`
`
`D. Obviousness over Flowerdew and Jang
`Petitioner asserts that claims 3–5, 12–16, and 19–22 of the ’537 patent
`would have been obvious over Flowerdew and Jang. Pet. 61–72. Patent
`Owner does not respond. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the reasons
`explained below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on this asserted ground.
`We provided an overview of Flowerdew above. See supra
`Part III.C.1. Before addressing Petitioner’s analysis, we additionally provide
`an overview of Jang.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00573
`Patent 7,825,537 B2
`
`
`1. Jang
`Jang describes contactless electrical energy transmission systems,
`where power is transferred through “an air-gap inductive coupling without
`there being any direct electric connection betw
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
