`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMATECH GROUP LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent No. 9,633,304
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL VAN DER WEIDE, PH.D.
`
`
`Infineon Exhibit 1003
`Infineon v. AmaTech
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ................................. 1
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED .......................................... 4
`
`III. MY UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW ................................................. 6
`
`A. Anticipation ................................................................................................. 8
`
`B. Obviousness ................................................................................................. 9
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSA”) .........................11
`
`V. THE ’304 PATENT .........................................................................................13
`
`A. Technology Overview ...............................................................................13
`
`B. Described Embodiments ............................................................................15
`
`1. Multi-Component BA Including a CA, CC, and EA ..........................15
`
`2. Components with Different Pitch ........................................................18
`
`C. Prosecution History ...................................................................................25
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE IN LIGHT
`OF THE PRIOR ART IDENTIFIED IN THE PETITION .............................25
`
`A. Ground 1: Takeda-322 and Ayala-362 ......................................................26
`
`1. Takeda-322 ..........................................................................................26
`
`a. Takeda-322’s Disclosures ........................................................... 26
`
`(1) Takeda-322’s Multi-Wire/Jumper Implementation ............ 27
`
`(2) Takeda-322’s Single-Wire Implementation ....................... 29
`
`(a) Takeda-322 Teaches a Single Wire ............................ 29
`
`(b) It Would Have Been Obvious to Use a Single
`Wire ............................................................................ 29
`
`(c) Conclusion on Single-Wire Implementation .............. 32
`
`(3) Takeda-322’s Inner Coils ................................................... 33
`
`2. Ayala-362 ............................................................................................35
`
`3. Takeda-322/Ayala-362 Combination ..................................................38
`
`a. Reasons to Combine .................................................................... 38
`
`b. The Reasons to Combine Apply to Both Takeda-322
`Implementations .......................................................................... 45
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`(1) Single-Wire Implementation .............................................. 45
`
`(2) Multi-Wire/Jumper Implementation ................................... 46
`
`c. Reasonable Expectation of Success ............................................ 47
`
`d. Use of a Uniform Conductor for the Inner and Outer Coils ....... 48
`
`(1) Single-Wire Implementation .............................................. 48
`
`(2) Multi-Wire/Jumper Implementation ................................... 49
`
`e. Takeda-322/Ayala-362 ................................................................ 52
`
`4. Claim-by-Claim Analysis ....................................................................52
`
`a. Claim 1 ........................................................................................ 53
`
`(1) “Booster antenna (BA) comprising the following
`components:” ...................................................................... 53
`
`(2) “a card antenna (CA) component;”..................................... 54
`
`(3) “a coupler coil (CC) component;” ...................................... 57
`
`(4) “and an extension antenna (EA) component;
`characterized in that:” ......................................................... 61
`
`(a) Nothing Precludes an EA Component from
`Performing Another Function .................................... 65
`
`(b) Takeda-322/Ayala-362’s EA Component is a
`“True Coil” ................................................................. 66
`
`(5) “at least one of the components has a pitch which is
`different than one or more of the other components.” ........ 71
`
`(a) Takeda-322/Ayala-362’s Components Have
`Different “Pitch” Under Its Plain Meaning ................ 73
`
`(b) Takeda-322/Ayala-362 Also Meets This
`Limitation if “Pitch” Is Limited to Average
`CCD ............................................................................ 75
`
`b. Claim 2 ........................................................................................ 79
`
`c. Claim 3 ........................................................................................ 83
`
`d. Claim 5 ........................................................................................ 87
`
`e. Claim 6 ........................................................................................ 88
`
`f. Claim 7 ........................................................................................ 90
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`g. Claim 8 ........................................................................................ 98
`
`h. Claim 12 ...................................................................................... 99
`
`i. Claim 13 ...................................................................................... 99
`
`j. Claim 14 .................................................................................... 100
`
`k. Claim 16 .................................................................................... 103
`
`B. Ground 2: Murayama and Ayala-362 ......................................................105
`
`1. Murayama is Prior Art .......................................................................105
`
`2. Murayama’s Disclosures ...................................................................107
`
`3. Murayama/Ayala-362 Combination ..................................................112
`
`a. Reasons to Combine .................................................................. 112
`
`b. Reasonable Expectation of Success .......................................... 118
`
`c. Wire Diameter ........................................................................... 119
`
`d. Murayama/Ayala-362 ............................................................... 121
`
`4. Claim-by-Claim Analysis ..................................................................121
`
`a. Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 121
`
`(1) “Booster antenna (BA) comprising the following
`components:” .................................................................... 121
`
`(2) “a card antenna (CA) component;”................................... 124
`
`(3) “a coupler coil (CC) component;” .................................... 128
`
`(4) “and an extension antenna (EA) component,
`characterized in that:” ....................................................... 131
`
`(5) “at least one of the components has a pitch which is
`different than one or more of the other components.” ...... 135
`
`b. Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 137
`
`c. Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 139
`
`d. Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 140
`
`e. Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 140
`
`f. Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 142
`
`g. Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 143
`
`h. Claim 11 .................................................................................... 144
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`i. Claim 12 .................................................................................... 144
`
`j. Claim 13 .................................................................................... 145
`
`k. Claim 14 .................................................................................... 146
`
`l. Claim 16 .................................................................................... 146
`
`C. Ground 3: Ayala-362 ...............................................................................148
`
`1. Ayala-362’s Resonator ......................................................................149
`
`2. Claim-by-Claim Analysis ..................................................................152
`
`a. Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 152
`
`(1) “Booster antenna (BA) comprising the following
`components:” .................................................................... 152
`
`(2) “a card antenna (CA) component;”................................... 153
`
`(3) “a coupler coil (CC) component;” .................................... 155
`
`(4) “and an extension antenna (EA) component;
`characterized in that:” ....................................................... 157
`
`(5) “at least one of the components has a pitch which is
`different than one or more of the other components.” ...... 162
`
`b. Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 163
`
`c. Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 166
`
`d. Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 167
`
`e. Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 167
`
`f. Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 168
`
`g. Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 169
`
`h. Claim 11 .................................................................................... 169
`
`i. Claim 12 .................................................................................... 170
`
`j. Claim 13 .................................................................................... 171
`
`k. Claim 14 .................................................................................... 171
`
`l. Claim 16 .................................................................................... 172
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Daniel van der Weide, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., counsel for
`
`Petitioner Infineon Technologies AG, to assess claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-14, and 16 (the
`
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,633,304 (Exhibit 1001, “the ’304
`
`patent”). I am being compensated for my time at my standard rate of $600.00 per
`
`hour, plus actual expenses. My compensation is not dependent in any way upon
`
`the outcome of the inter partes review of the ’304 patent.
`
`I.
`
`PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`
`2.
`
`I am qualified by education and experience to testify as an expert in
`
`the field of radio-frequency identification (RFID). Attached as Exhibit 1004 to this
`
`report is a copy of my curriculum vitae detailing my education and experience.
`
`Additionally, the following overview of my background pertains to my
`
`qualifications for providing expert testimony in this matter.
`
`3.
`
`I am a Full Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I received my Bachelor of
`
`Science Degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Iowa in 1987; my
`
`Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University in
`
`1990; and my Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering from Stanford in 1993. I have
`
`received recognition, for example as an Office of Naval Research Young
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Investigator, a National Science Foundation (NSF) PECASE awardee, and most
`
`recently as a Fellow of the IEEE.
`
`4. My expertise includes high-frequency electrical measurement and
`
`communications systems, advanced high-frequency measurement circuit design,
`
`and, in particular, the design and implementation of radio frequency identification
`
`(“RFID”) systems. Specifically, I perform research on RFID antennas and sensors,
`
`and have been a co-principal investigator on research projects in RFID systems at
`
`the University of Wisconsin funded by the NSF.
`
`5.
`
`I teach courses such as ECE 447 Applied Communications Systems,
`
`which focuses on the hardware aspects of wireless communications systems and
`
`uses the text “Microwave Transistor Amplifiers: Analysis and Design,” 2nd ed.,
`
`Guillermo Gonzalez, Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice-Hall (1997); ECE 420
`
`Electromagnetic Wave Transmission, which focuses on electromagnetic theory
`
`applied to waveguides, transmission lines, and antennas and uses the text
`
`“Engineering Electromagnetics and Waves” (custom text containing chapters from
`
`both Engineering Electromagnetics and Electromagnetic Waves) by U. S. Inan and
`
`A. S. Inan (Pearson Custom); ECE 547 Advanced Communications Circuit
`
`Design, which focuses on wireless communication systems circuits, antennas, and
`
`protocols and uses the text “Microwave and RF Design of Wireless Systems,”
`
`David Pozar (Wiley, 2001). Recently I taught ECE 545 Microwave Measurements
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Laboratory, which used a variety of materials, both textbook and whitepapers, as
`
`well as numerical simulations to enable students to explore experimental RF and
`
`microwave techniques, such as spectrum and network analysis, noise
`
`measurements, and interference measurements.
`
`6.
`
`I perform research on digital radio and communications systems
`
`ranging from RFID tags to lightwave transceivers, with emphasis on wireless
`
`circuits, antennas, and microwave communications. Some of my work on antennas
`
`(e.g., for medical imaging, treatment and RFID) has been supported by the NSF
`
`and NIH. Furthermore, as a consultant, I have performed research on antennas for
`
`clients such as JDS-Uniphase (evaluating flexible substrates and metal deposition
`
`techniques for suitability as printed RFID antennas), Berntsen (designing and
`
`developing antennas for geolocation and buried asset marking) and Terso
`
`(designing and developing RFID antennas for low-temperature reagent and
`
`medical sample storage.)1
`
`7.
`
`I have published results of my work in several peer-reviewed journals
`
`and presented my findings at recognized conferences. Some representative
`
`publications related to performance of planar antennas and means of fabrication
`
`
`1 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0364640A1 (“Radio
`
`Frequency Identification Techniques in an Ultra-Low Temperature Environment.”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`include: M. Martinez & D. van der Weide, Compact single-layer depolarizing
`
`chipless RFID tag, Microwave & Optical Technology Letters, 1897-1900 (2016);
`
`H. Y. Chen, A. S. Bhadkamkar, T. H. Chou, & D. W. van der Weide, Vector
`
`Backscattered Signals Improve Piggyback Modulation for Sensing With Passive
`
`UHF RFID Tags, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 3538-
`
`45 (2011); Chih-Chuan Yen, Alfonso E. Gutierrez, Dharmaraj Veeramani, &
`
`Daniel van der Weide, Radar Cross-Section Analysis of Backscattering RFID
`
`Tags, IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, 279-81 (2007); H. Y.
`
`Chen, Y. W. Mak, S. Bae, A. Bhadkamkar, & D. W. van der Weide, Wireless
`
`impedance measurement of UHF RFID tag chips, 2012 IEEE/MTT-S International
`
`Microwave Symposium Digest, 1-3 (2012); H. Y. Chen, S. Bae, A. Bhadkamkar,
`
`Y. W. Mak, & D. W. van der Weide, Coupling passive sensors to UHF RFID tags,
`
`2012 IEEE Radio and Wireless Symposium, 255-58 (2012); Chih-Chuan Yen,
`
`Dharmaraj Veeramani, Alfonso E. Gutierrez, & D. W. van der Weide, RFID Tag
`
`Reading Effects of Cylindrical Conductive Packages, Proceedings of the 36th
`
`European Microwave Conference, 733-36 (2006).
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`
`8. My findings, as explained below, are based on my years of education,
`
`research, experience, and background in the field of electrical engineering, as well
`
`as my investigation and study of relevant materials for this declaration. When
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`developing the opinions set forth in this declaration, I assumed the perspective of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art, as set forth in § IV below. In forming my
`
`opinions, I have studied and considered the materials identified in the list below.
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1018
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,304 (“’304 patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,633,304 (“’304 FH”)
`
`JP 4016322 B2 (certified translation and original) (“Takeda-322”)
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0152362 (“Ayala-362”)
`
`WO 2011/122162 A1 (certified translation and original) (“Murayama”)
`
`Excerpts from KLAUS FINKENZELLER, RFID HANDBOOK:
`FUNDAMENTALS AND APPLICATIONS IN CONTACTLESS SMART CARDS
`AND IDENTIFICATION, SECOND EDITION (Wiley, 2003) (“Finkenzeller”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,749,390 (“Eray-390”)
`
`EP 1031939 A1 (“Emori-939”)
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0184281 A1 (“Ashizaki”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,130,166 (“Ayala-166”)
`
`Excerpts from WILLIAM H. HAYT, JR. & JACK E. KEMMERLY,
`ENGINEERING CIRCUIT ANALYSIS, THIRD EDITION (McGraw Hill, 1978)
`(“Hayt”)
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0072423 A1 (“Finn-423”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,698,089 (“Finn-089”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,818 (“Finn-818”)
`Exhibit H to Complaint for Patent Infringement, Smart Packaging
`Solutions SA v. CPI Card Group Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00556
`Mohan et al., Simple Accurate Expression for Planar Spiral
`Inductances, 34(10) IEEE J. OF SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS, 1419-24 (Oct.
`1999) (“Mohan”) (from pages 7-12 of the Declaration of Gordon
`McPherson, Ex. 1023)
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Mohan et al., Simple
`Accurate Expression for Planar Spiral Inductances, 34(10) IEEE J. OF
`SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS, 1419-24 (Oct. 1999)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/0205140 (“Amadeo”)
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`1035
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,334,736 (“Uesaka”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0198078 A1 (“Caruana”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0255157 A1 (“Launay-157”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0176205 A1 (“Patrice”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0315799 A1 (“Eray-799”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,956,751 (“Herman”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0164326 (“Iwakata”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0109035 (“Subramanian”)
`U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 61/868,089 (“Finn-App-089”)
`U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 13/600,140 (“Finn-140”)
`Excerpts from STEVEN M. KAPLAN, IEEE WILEY ELECTRICAL AND
`ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING DICTIONARY (Wiley, 2004) (“Wiley”)
`
`III. MY UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`
`9.
`
`In developing my opinions, I discussed various relevant legal
`
`principles with Petitioner’s attorneys. Though I do not purport to have prior
`
`knowledge of such principles, I understood them when they were explained to me
`
`and have relied upon such legal principles, as explained to me, in the course of
`
`forming the opinions set forth in this declaration. My understanding in this respect
`
`is as follows:
`
`10.
`
`I understand that “inter partes review” (IPR) is a proceeding before
`
`the United States Patent & Trademark Office for evaluating the patentability of an
`
`issued patent’s claims based on prior-art patents and printed publications.
`
`11.
`
`I understand that, in this proceeding, Petitioner has the burden of
`
`proving that the challenged claims of the ’304 patent are unpatentable by a
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “preponderance of the evidence”
`
`means that a fact or conclusion is more likely true than not true.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that, in IPR proceedings, claim terms in a patent are
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSA”) in the context of the entire patent and the prosecution
`
`history pertaining to the patent. If the specification provides a special definition
`
`for a claim term that differs from the meaning the term would otherwise possess,
`
`the specification’s special definition controls. If a claim element is expressed as a
`
`“means” for performing a specified function, I understand that it covers the
`
`corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents of the
`
`described structure. I have applied these standards in preparing the opinions in this
`
`declaration.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that determining whether a particular patent or printed
`
`publication constitutes prior art to a challenged patent claim can require
`
`determining the effective filing date (also known as the priority date) to which the
`
`challenged claim is entitled. I understand that for a patent claim to be entitled to
`
`the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application to which the patent claims
`
`priority, the earlier application must have described the claimed invention in
`
`sufficient detail to convey with reasonable clarity to the POSA that the inventor
`
`had possession of the claimed invention as of the earlier application’s filing date. I
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`understand that a disclosure that merely renders the claimed invention obvious is
`
`not sufficient written description for the claim to be entitled to the benefit of the
`
`filing date of the application containing that disclosure.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be patentable,
`
`it must be, among other things, new (novel—i.e., not anticipated) and not obvious
`
`from the prior art. My understanding of these two legal standards is set forth
`
`below.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`15.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior art
`
`(and therefore not novel), each and every limitation of the claim must be found,
`
`expressly or inherently, in a single prior-art reference. I understand that a claim
`
`limitation is disclosed for the purpose of anticipation if a POSA would have
`
`understood the reference to disclose the limitation based on inferences that a POSA
`
`would reasonably be expected to draw from the explicit teachings in the reference
`
`when read in light of the POSA’s knowledge and experience.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a claim limitation is inherent in a prior art reference
`
`if that limitation is necessarily present when practicing the teachings of the
`
`reference, regardless of whether a person of ordinary skill recognized the presence
`
`of that limitation in the prior art.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a patent claim may be unpatentable if it would have
`
`been obvious in view of a single prior-art reference or a combination of prior-art
`
`references.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if the differences between
`
`the subject matter of the claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field at
`
`the time the invention was made. Specifically, I understand that the obviousness
`
`question involves a consideration of:
`
`• the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`• the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`• the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`• if present, objective factors indicative of non-obviousness,
`
`sometimes referred to as “secondary considerations.” To my
`
`knowledge, the Patent Owner has not asserted any such secondary
`
`considerations with respect to the ’304 patent.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that in order for a claimed invention to be considered
`
`obvious, a POSA must have had a reason for combining teachings from multiple
`
`prior-art references (or for altering a single prior-art reference, in the case of
`
`obviousness in view of a single reference) in the fashion proposed.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`20.
`
`I further understand that in determining whether a prior-art reference
`
`would have been combined with other prior art or with other information within
`
`the knowledge of a POSA, the following are examples of approaches and
`
`rationales that may be considered:
`
`• combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`• use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way;
`
`• applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to
`
`try,” i.e., choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`• known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it
`
`for use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`• some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior-art reference or
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`to combine prior-art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention. I understand that this teaching, suggestion or
`
`motivation may come from a prior-art reference or from the
`
`knowledge or common sense of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that for a single reference or a combination of references
`
`to render the claimed invention obvious, a POSA must have been able to arrive at
`
`the claimed invention by altering or combining the applied references.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSA”)
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed and understand that for purposes of assessing
`
`whether prior-art references disclose every element of a patent claim (thus
`
`“anticipating” the claim) and/or would have rendered the claim obvious, the patent
`
`and the prior-art references must be assessed from the perspective of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) to which the patent is related, based on
`
`the understanding of that person at the time of the patent claim’s priority date. I
`
`have been informed and understand that a POSA is presumed to be aware of all
`
`pertinent prior art and the conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of
`
`ordinary creativity. I have applied this standard throughout my declaration.
`
`23. The ’304 patent involves technology in the field of smart cards
`
`operating in at least a contactless mode (using, e.g., RFID technology). ’304
`
`patent, 1:61-2:2. I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the state of the art
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`in this field by August 2010. I use this timeframe because the face of the ’304
`
`patent indicates an earliest claimed priority date of August 12, 2010. Whenever I
`
`offer an opinion in this declaration about the knowledge of a POSA, the manner in
`
`which a POSA would have understood the claims of the ’304 patent or its
`
`description, the manner in which a POSA would have understood the prior art, or
`
`what a POSA would have been led to do based on the prior art, I am referring to
`
`the August 2010 timeframe, even if I do not say so specifically in each case.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner may attempt to prove that the
`
`alleged invention recited in the challenged claims was conceived at some time
`
`prior to the earliest claimed priority date on the face of the patent. At the time of
`
`this declaration, I am unaware of the Patent Owner having alleged any earlier
`
`conception date or produced any evidence to establish any earlier conception date.
`
`25.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art in the August 2010
`
`timeframe (“POSA”) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering
`
`or a similar field, and 1-2 years of experience researching and developing antennas
`
`used in RFID applications. Additional educational background could substitute for
`
`professional experience and vice versa. This person would have been capable of
`
`understanding and applying the teachings of the ’304 patent and the prior-art
`
`references discussed in this declaration. Additionally, in my opinion, a POSA’s
`
`level of skill would not have differed in a manner material to the Grounds
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`described below in § VI between the ’304 patent’s earliest filed provisional
`
`application (in 2010) and the patent’s filing date (in 2015).
`
`26. By 2010, I held a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, and I had at least
`
`seven years of experience developing, researching, and supervising graduate
`
`students researching antennas used in RFID applications. Therefore, I was a
`
`person of more than ordinary skill in the art during the relevant timeframe.
`
`However, I worked with many people who fit the characteristics of the POSA, and
`
`I am familiar with their level of skill. When developing the opinions set forth in
`
`this declaration, I assumed the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art, as set forth above.
`
`V. THE ’304 PATENT
`
`27. The ’304 patent relates to contactless “smart” or “integrated circuit”
`
`cards which may be used in radio frequency identification (“RFID”) systems. ’304
`
`patent, 1:61-63, 9:7-26.
`
`A. Technology Overview
`
`28. RFID systems use electromagnetic fields to interact with electronic
`
`devices. Finkenzeller (Exhibit 1008),2 at 6. One common example of a device
`
`
`2 KLAUS FINKENZELLER, RFID HANDBOOK: FUNDAMENTALS AND APPLICATIONS IN
`
`CONTACTLESS SMART CARDS AND IDENTIFICATION, SECOND EDITION (Wiley, 2003)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`used in RFID systems is a “contactless smart card,” which is an electronic device
`
`that stores electronic data and has a transponder that can interact with an RFID
`
`reader in a contactless manner via an antenna on the smart card. Finkenzeller, at 5,
`
`7-9.
`
`29. When a contactless smart card is brought into proximity with the
`
`RFID reader, the RFID reader energizes the smart card via inductive energy
`
`transfer, enabling communication between the RFID reader and the smart card’s
`
`transponder. Finkenzeller, at 8-9, Figure 1.7. Figure 1.7, showing a typical RFID
`
`system, is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Finkenzeller, FIG. 1.7
`
`
`is a book which I have personally owned and referenced since before 2010. The
`
`pages included in Exhibit 2008 to this proceeding are true and accurate scans of
`
`pages from my copy of this book.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`30. The antenna on a smart card is typically either (1) a coil (having an
`
`inductance and capacitance) or (2) a coil (having an inductance) and capacitor.
`
`Finkenzeller, at 42-43. The antenna forms a resonant circuit tuned to resonate at
`
`the transmission frequency of the RFID reader. Finkenzeller, at 42-43. The
`
`antenna’s layout is chosen so the antenna has a desired range, coupling strength,
`
`and bandwidth. See Eray-390 (Exhibit 1009), 10:55-11:25 (describing three basic,
`
`well-known rules regarding magnetic field, mutual inductance, and coupling
`
`coefficient, governing smart card antenna systems “known to the person skilled in
`
`the art”), 11:26-12:12 (summarizing well-known aspects of a POSA’s background
`
`knowledge pertaining to modifying antenna geometry to achieve or tune antenna
`
`characteristics); Finkenzeller, at 18 (describing the well-known role of coil
`
`area/size on smart card transmission range), 41-42 (describing the well-known role
`
`of winding number and coil area/size on efficiency of power transfer between a
`
`reader and card antenna).
`
`B. Described Embodiments
`
`1. Multi-Component BA Including a CA, CC, and EA
`
`31. The ’304 patent describes a “booster antenna” (BA) that purportedly
`
`improves “coupling with RFID smart cards.” ’304 patent, Abstract, 1:61-64 (“This
`
`disclosure relates to smart cards (or other secure documents, and the like),
`
`operating at least in a contactless mode (ISO 14443 or NFC/ISO 15693).”), 4:41-
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`45 (“It is a general object of the invention to provide improved techniques for
`
`improving coupling with RFID smart cards (as an example of secure documents,
`
`and the like). It is a further general object of the invention to provide an improved
`
`booster antenna (BA) for smart cards.”), 36:56-61 (“[T]he configurations of and
`
`improvements to booster antennas disclosed herein may provide for improv