UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`———————
`
`IPR2022-01136
`U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOSHUA PHINNEY,
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`1
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 1 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4
`I.
`Qualifications and Professional Experience .................................................... 5
`II.
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 9
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards .............................................................................. 11
`V. Overview of the ’360 Patent .......................................................................... 12
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 16
`VII.
`Identification of how the Claims are Unpatentable ....................................... 16
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 15 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Tobergte in view of Cole. ............................................................ 17
`Summary of Tobergte .......................................................................... 17
`Summary of Cole................................................................................. 23
`Reasons to Combine Tobergte and Cole ............................................. 25
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 31
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 50
`Ground 2: Claims 2 and 3 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Tobergte in view of Cole and further in view of
`Schuermann. ........................................................................................ 53
`Summary of Schuermann .................................................................... 53
`Reasons to Combine Tobergte and Cole with Schuermann ................ 55
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................ 59
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................ 62
`Ground 3: Claims 8-9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Tobergte in view of Cole and in further view of O’Toole. ................. 62
`Summary of O’Toole .......................................................................... 62
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`B.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`C.
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 2 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`Reasons to Combine Tobergte and Cole with O’Toole ...................... 64
`2.
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 67
`3.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................ 69
`4.
`D. Ground 4: Claims 10 and 11 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Tobergte, Cole, O’Toole, and Plonsky ....................................... 71
`Summary of Plonsky ........................................................................... 71
`1.
`Reasons to Combine Plonsky with Tobergte, Cole, and O’Toole ...... 72
`2.
`Claim 10 .............................................................................................. 74
`3.
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 76
`4.
`VIII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 78
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 3 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`I, Dr. Joshua Phinney, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Apple Inc. in the matter
`
`of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360 (“the ’360 patent”) to
`
`Finkenzeller et al.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony, and I
`
`have no other interest in this case or the parties thereto.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-
`
`3, 8-11, and 15 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’360 patent are unpatentable as
`
`they would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art. It is my
`
`opinion that all of the limitations of the challenged claims would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`the ’360 patent, Ex.1001;
`
`the prosecution history of the ’360 patent (“’360 File History”),
`
`4.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Ex.1002;
`
`c.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,519,386 to Tobergte (“Tobergte”), Ex.1005; and
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 4 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,144,299 to Cole (“Cole”), Ex.1006;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,287,112 to Schuermann (“Schuermann”), Ex.1007;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,384,648 to O’Toole (“O’Toole”), Ex.1008;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,049,857 to Plonsky (“Plonsky”), Ex.1009;
`
`JP2001243431 to Naruse et al. (“Naruse”) – Certified English
`
`Translation, Ex.1010.
`
`5.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`the documents listed above;
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for obviousness,
`
`and any additional authoritative documents as cited in the body of this
`
`declaration; and
`
`my own knowledge and experience based upon my work in the field
`
`of networking as described below, as well as the following materials.
`
`6.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in any quoted material has been
`
`added.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`7. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in Exhibit 1004. The
`
`following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional
`
`experience.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 5 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`8.
`
`I am a Principal Engineer in the Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science practice at Exponent, an engineering and scientific consulting firm
`
`headquartered at 149 Commonwealth Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025. I
`
`received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (“MIT”) in 2005. I also earned S.M. and B.S. degrees in Electrical
`
`Engineering from MIT and the University of Illinois, Chicago (“UIC”),
`
`respectively.
`
`9. My master’s thesis at MIT focused on the miniaturization of power
`
`converters, by reducing the energy storage and improving the performance of
`
`inductors. As part of this work, I designed, tested, and constructed ferrite, iron-
`
`powder, and air-core inductors, while minimizing magnetic losses. During this
`
`time, I invented with my advisor, Dr. David Perreault, an electrical component
`
`with a capacitive impedance and an inductance-cancellation feature provided by
`
`magnetically coupled windings. A filter having a capacitor with inductance
`
`cancellation provides enhanced performance over frequency compared with
`
`conventional capacitors. This work was later extended to a second patent, with
`
`magnetically coupled windings used to improve EMI filters and common-mode
`
`chokes.
`
`10. My doctoral work at MIT centered on miniaturization of power
`
`converters and magnetics. As part of my doctoral work, I constructed and modeled
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 6 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`planar magnetic systems, including magnetically coupled, printed magnetic coils.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`By incorporating such compact, magnetic structures into power converters, the
`
`resulting converter enjoyed multiple benefits, including waveform-shaping and
`
`reduction of switch stresses. Through the modeling associated with this
`
`dissertation, I become proficient in methods for analyzing the inductances of
`
`packages and interconnects, especially planar or filamentous systems of
`
`conductors. In my Ph.D. dissertation, I developed new switched-mode power
`
`amplifiers used to drive the magnetic structures described above. Contributions of
`
`both my Master’s and doctoral thesis included techniques to track the impedance
`
`of resonant systems, and ensure that the passive elements I had constructed were
`
`driven at a resistive operating point by measuring voltage-current phase within the
`
`driving circuitry.
`
`11.
`
` For my publications related to both my Master’s and Ph.D. thesis, I
`
`received the William M. Portnoy Prize Paper Award (2003) and the IEEE Power
`
`Electronics Society Transactions Prize Paper Award (2004).
`
`12. After earning my Ph.D., I joined Exponent and have led technical
`
`investigations to portable electronic devices, microcomputers, as well as industrial
`
`and consumer devices with embedded controllers. My job functions include
`
`analyzing hardware and software of these devices to understand their modes of
`
`failure, and testifying regarding these devices in legal matters involving patents
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 7 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`and trade secrets.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`13. As part of my employment at Exponent, I have performed design,
`
`design reviews, and failure analysis for wireless charging and communication
`
`systems. The focus of this work has been (1) coupling between transmitter and
`
`receiver coils from the standpoint of efficiency and magnetic-field exposure to
`
`users, in particular for the Power Matters Alliance; (2) coupling of interrogators
`
`and transponder coils in printed magnetic cards; and (3) integrated-circuit and coil
`
`failures due to wear, dimensional changes, and triboelectric charging. In addition
`
`to testifying regarding resonant and inductive wireless-power transfer, I have
`
`consulted for industry regarding coil design, RFID and near-field communication
`
`(NFC) integrated circuits, modulation methods, and on-metal RFID tags.
`
`14. Circa 2006, I performed evaluations of ISO/IEC 14443-compliant
`
`card readers (“proximity coupling devices”) and cards (“proximity integrated
`
`circuit cards”). At the time, there was high incidence of cards conducting current
`
`across them, via the human body model and other charge models, such that they
`
`were causing problems at specific card reader installations, mostly notably point-
`
`of-sale terminals, and notably causing terminals such as ATMs to freeze up and or
`
`require reboot. One aspect of the evaluation was whether the external charging and
`
`discharge could affect the normal protocol exchange of the smartcard.
`
`15.
`
`In the context of a patent evaluation for Microsoft Corp., I have
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 8 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`testified regarding the data-framing and communication characteristics of contact
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`smart cards. This evaluation centered around Linux-based mobile phones from
`
`circa 2004, which used contact smart-card technology to add functionality of the
`
`mobile phone.
`
`16.
`
`I have testified regarding the software-defined features, internal
`
`circuitry, and physical embodiments of electronic equipment. Regarding software,
`
`I have reviewed C++, Java, Visual Basic, and machine language code for purposes
`
`of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims. In particular, I
`
`have testified regarding ARM Linux and its peripheral drivers; microcomputer
`
`software for instrument control; and embedded software for the control of
`
`machines and consumer products. In addition, I have acted as a consulting and
`
`testifying expert regarding wireless communication in embedded systems, e.g., for
`
`computer peripherals, door operators, telemetry, and remote tracking.
`
`17.
`
`In addition to the forgoing, I perform electromagnetic assessment of
`
`utility and communication infrastructure. These issues include permitting,
`
`interference, and environmental impact of radar, AC and HVDC transmission
`
`lines, substations, photovoltaic installations, generators, broadcast antennas, and
`
`electrified mass transit systems.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`18.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 9 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`19.
`
` It is my understanding that the earliest possible priority date for the
`
`’360 patent is July 30, 2003. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in
`
`the field of the ’360 patent, as of July 30, 2003, would have been someone
`
`knowledgeable and familiar with the short-range, wireless communication arts
`
`(e.g., RFID, NFC) that are pertinent to the ’360 patent. That person would have a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
`
`science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working
`
`in the electrical engineering field. Lack of work experience can be remedied by
`
`additional education, and vice versa.
`
`20. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as of the alleged
`
`priority date of the ’360 patent (i.e., July 30, 2003). Unless otherwise stated, when
`
`I provide my understanding and analysis below, it is consistent with the level of a
`
`POSITA as of the alleged priority date of the ’360 patent.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 10 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`21.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’360 patent, I am relying on certain basic
`
`legal principles that counsel have explained to me. These principles are discussed
`
`below.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’360 patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged
`
`invention recited in the ’360 patent.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 11 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’360 PATENT
`25. The ’360 patent generally relates to short-range, wireless
`
`communications, and in particular, “automatically setting up a data connection in
`
`intelligent devices” when the devices “approach” each other. ’360 patent, 1:8-12.
`
`Fig. 1 illustrates example intelligent devices 10, 20, 30 that may take the “form of
`
`a portable computer 11 or a mobile telephone 21 or be realized in an RFID
`
`transponder with a chip 31, formed e.g. in a contactless chip card 30.” ’360 patent,
`
`3:22-37, Fig. 1. Each device 10, 20, 30 includes a coil for contactless
`
`communication. ’360 patent, 3:22-25.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 12 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Intelligent devices with
`coils 13, 23, 33 for
`contactless communication
`’360 patent, Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`26. The ’360 patent explains that first step in setting up such a data
`
`connection between these devices is detection of the “target” device by the
`
`“initiator” device. ’360 patent, 1:21-23. Typically, an initiator device detects a
`
`target device by “cyclically emitting search queries” in a search mode that are
`
`answered by the target. ’360 patent, 1:21-30. The ’360 patent notes, however, that
`
`continually emitting search queries causes “a relatively high constant power
`
`consumption” in the initiator device. ’360 patent, 1:30-36.
`
`27.
`
`In light of this “undesirable effect,” the ’360 patent proposes that the
`
`initiator only enter the search mode and transmit search signals when the target is
`
`“possibly located” within range of the initiator. ’360 patent, 1:38-39, 2:10-21. To
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 13 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`determine if a target device is possibly located within range, the initiator relies on
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`the known technique of detecting a “property change”—such as a change in
`
`frequency—of its oscillating circuit. ’360 patent, 1:56-63, 2:11-16.
`
`28. As I explain in my analysis, however, both the stated problem and
`
`alleged solution of the ’360 patent were already described in the prior art.
`
`29.
`
`In more detail, Fig. 2 (annotated below) illustrates a “simplified
`
`equivalent circuit diagram” of the devices 10, 20, 30 in Fig. 1. The device includes
`
`transmission oscillator 50 formed by coil 13 and capacitor 48. ’360 patent, 5:9-11.
`
`I note that the described “transmission oscillator” is merely another name for what
`
`is known in the art as a resonant circuit. Ex.1005, 3:18-20, 32-33, Fig. 1. The
`
`communication element 12 is a device, that when switched on, emits search signals
`
`“to ascertain the presence of another device . . . within the response range of the
`
`coil 13.” ’360 patent, 3:55-57. This communication element is connected to coil 13
`
`of the transmission oscillator and indirectly to a data processing component 11 via
`
`switch 42 of switching apparatus 15.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 14 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`switch 42 for physically connecting
`communication element 12
`to energy supply 41
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`transmission oscillator 50 (i.e.,
`resonant circuit) includes coil 13
`and capacitor 48
`
`
`
`measuring unit 46 monitors
`property of transmission oscillator 50 to control
`actuation of switch 42 via actuator 43
`’360 patent, Fig. 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`30. The measuring unit 46 monitors a property—frequency or
`
`impedance—of the transmission oscillator 50 and sends out a control signal when a
`
`change in the monitored property is detected. ‘360 patent, 6:53-65. The control
`
`signal actuates switch 42 to “switch[] on” the communication element 12 by
`
`physically connecting the communication element to an energy source 41. ’360
`
`patent, 7:67-8:6, cl. 1, 4:42-50.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 15 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`31.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’360
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`for the purposes of this inter partes review, the claims are to be construed under
`
`the so-called Phillips standard, under which claim terms are given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in light of the specification and prosecution history, unless the inventor has set
`
`forth a special meaning for a term. For the purposes of my analysis below, I do not
`
`believe any claim terms require explicit construction.
`
`VII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`32.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’360 patent would have been obvious in view of the prior art. The
`
`discussion below provides a detailed analysis of how the prior art references
`
`identified below teach the limitations of the Challenged Claims of the ’360 patent.
`
`33. As part of my analysis, I have considered the scope and content of the
`
`prior art and any differences between the alleged invention and the prior art. I
`
`describe in detail below the scope and content of the prior art, as well as any
`
`differences between the alleged invention and the prior art, on an element-by-
`
`element basis for each Challenged Claims of the ’360 patent.
`
`34. As described in detail below, the alleged invention of the Challenged
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 16 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Claims would have been obvious in view of the teachings of the identified prior art
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`references as well as the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 15 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Tobergte in view of Cole.
`
`Summary of Tobergte
`
`1.
`35. Like the ’360 patent, Tobergte relates to short-range, wireless
`
`communications between electronic devices. Tobergte, 1:6-9, 3:16-18. Tobergte
`
`describes the same problem with these devices identified by the ’360 patent and
`
`proposes the same solution.
`
`36. Specifically, Tobergte notes that in past data exchange systems, the
`
`interrogator searches for the portable data carrier by “transmit[ting] a high-
`
`frequency electromagnetic field that also transfers information” (i.e., a search
`
`signal). Tobergte, 1:22-24. “When the data carrier approaches such an
`
`interrogation device, the energy taken up from the high-frequency electromagnetic
`
`field feeds the circuit of the data carrier … [and] [t]he data carrier then returns its
`
`identification to the interrogation device.” Tobergte, 1:24-33. Tobergte explains
`
`that “problems” arise when the interrogation device “must continually transmit an
`
`electromagnetic field” to search for the portable data carrier, for example, because
`
`the interrogator has a limited energy source. Tobergte, 1:34-42. This problem of
`
`high energy usage when searching for data carriers is the same problem identified
`
`by the ’360 patent. See ‘360 patent, 1:30-36 (explaining that continually emitting
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 17 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`search queries causes “high constant power consumption” in the initiator device).
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`37. Tobergte also describes the same solution as the ’360 patent. In
`
`Tobergte’s system, “neither the data carrier nor the fixed station is operated
`
`continually.” Tobergte, 1:58-59. Instead, Tobergte’s fixed station (interrogator)
`
`waits until it detects a change in voltage indicative of the portable data carrier
`
`being nearby before switching on its oscillator and transmitting a high-frequency
`
`search signal:
`
`As soon as the receiver circuit 36 detects a signal voltage on the leads
`31 and 33, it activates a switch 42 so that the lead 41 is also connected
`to the energy source 40 and the computer 38 and the oscillator 34 are
`switched on. The fixed station 2 then actively generates a high-
`frequency magnetic field which is taken up by the data carrier 1 and
`applied to the rectifier circuit 12.
`
`Tobergte, 4:11-17. Like the ’360 patent’s substantially similar method, Tobergte’s
`
`technique results in “the power consumption in the fixed station [being] lower.”
`
`Tobergte, 1:43-46.
`
`38. Tobergte’s Fig. 1 (annotated below) illustrates its fixed station 2 and
`
`portable data carrier 1 which communicate wirelessly via their respective coils.
`
`Tobergte, 2:8-14.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 18 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`data carrier 1
`
`wireless
`communications via
`coil 20 of data
`carrier 1 and coil 30
`of fixed station 2
`
`fixed station 2
`
`Tobergte, Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`
`39. Tobergte’s fixed station includes “a resonant circuit which consists of
`
`a coil 30 and a capacitor 32 and which is connected to an oscillator 34,” as
`
`illustrated in Fig. 1 below (cropped to focus on the fixed station 2). Tobergte, 3:32-
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 19 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`34. This configuration of a coil and capacitor (called a “resonant circuit” in
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`Tobergte) is referred to as a “transmission oscillator” in the ’360 patent. See, e.g.,
`
`‘360 patent, 5:9-11. Tobergte explains that “[a]n oscillator always consists of an
`
`active element and one or more frequency-determining elements,” and that the
`
`resonant circuit constitutes “the frequency-determining part of the oscillator.”
`
`Tobergte, 2:8-17, 3:60-62. Block 34 (labeled “oscillator”) is the active element of
`
`the oscillator.
`
`block 34 is active
`element of
`oscillator
`
`resonant circuit formed by
`coil 30 and capacitor 32 is
`frequency-determining part of
`oscillator
`(transmission oscillator)
`
`switch 42 connects
`oscillator 34 to
`energy source 40
`via lead 41
`
`processing device 38
`is connected to
`oscillator 34
`Tobergte, Fig. 1 (cropped and annotated).
`
`
`
`40. As shown above, the oscillator 34 is connected (i) to coil 30 of the
`
`resonant circuit via lead 33, (ii) to processing device (computer) 38 via lead 39,
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 20 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`and (iii) to energy supply 40, via a lead 41. The oscillator 34 receives data from
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`processing device (computer) 38, modulates the data, and transmits it via coil 30.
`
`Tobergte, 3:34-41. The active oscillator element 34 is thus a communication
`
`element. A “switch 42” on lead 41 physically connects and disconnects oscillator
`
`34 (communication element) to energy source 40. Tobergte, 4:11-14.
`
`41. Tobergte’s fixed station 2 further includes “a receiver device 36” that
`
`is connected via lead lines 31 and 33 to the resonant circuit and connected to
`
`switch 42, as shown below in cropped Fig. 1. Tobergte, 3:42-45.
`
`oscillator 34
`(communication element)
`
`resonant circuit formed by
`coil 30 and capacitor 31
`(transmission oscillator)
`
`receiver device 36
`connected to
`resonant circuit
`
`switch 42
`
`Tobergte, Fig. 1 (cropped and annotated).
`
`
`42. Tobergte explains that one of the functions of the receiver device 36 is
`
`to detect the presence of a nearby data carrier. Tobergte, 4:4-26. It does this by
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 21 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`measuring a change in voltage on the leads 31 and 33 connected to the resonant
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`circuit. Tobergte, 4:4-26. Specifically, the “coil 30 in the fixed station 2 receives
`
`the signal transmitted by the data carrier 1 and generates a corresponding voltage
`
`on the leads 31 and 33, which voltage is evaluated by the receiver circuit 36.”
`
`Tobergte, 4:4-9. When the receiver device 36 detects a change in the monitored
`
`voltage, it activates switch 42 to “switch[] on” the active oscillator 34
`
`(communication element) by connecting it to energy source 40. Tobergte, 4:11-14.
`
`This sequence is illustrated in Fig. 1 below.
`
`(iv) oscillator 34
`(communication element)
`switched on and sends
`search signal
`
`(i) nearby data carrier
`causes change in voltage in
`resonant circuit
`(transmission oscillator)
`
`(ii) receiver device
`36 (measuring
`device) detects
`change in voltage
`and sends control
`signal to switch 42
`
`(iii) switch 42 closes and connects
`energy source 40 to oscillator 34
`(communication element)
`Tobergte, Fig. 1 (cropped and annotated).
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 22 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`Summary of Cole
`
`2.
`43. Like the ’360 patent and Tobergte, Cole relates to short-range,
`
`contactless communications between electronic devices. Cole, Abstract. Cole in
`
`particular describes a technique for “automated detection of the presence” of
`
`nearby portable devices, such as electronic labels. Cole, Abstract, 1:4-10. Cole’s
`
`technique relies upon known “field disturbance principles” such as changes in
`
`“impedance” of an antenna. Cole, 1:11-15, 4:7-22.
`
`44.
`
`In more detail, Cole teaches a “presence sensing antenna” with an
`
`inductor coil and tuning capacitor (i.e., a resonant circuit) that creates a “presence
`
`sensing field.” Cole, 4:7-22, 9:38-46, 9:65-67; When an electronic label containing
`
`a corresponding resonant circuit enters the field, a “modification of the impedance
`
`of [the] antenna” is produced. Cole, 4:7-22. When a change in impedance greater
`
`than a threshold value is observed, “a label presence output signal” (LPO) is
`
`output. Cole, 4:20-22.
`
`45. Figs. 11 and 12 of Cole (annotated below) illustrate an example
`
`embodiment of the elements associated with its detection technique. Presence
`
`detector 4 (shown in more detail in Fig. 12) includes a “label presence antenna
`
`(LPA) system 40” with “inductor 35 tuned by capacitor 41” (i.e., a resonant
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 23 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`circuit).1 Cole, 9:35-67. In the example, when “the presence of label 2 provides a
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`disturbance to the impedance of inductor 35 seen by presence detector 4,” the
`
`detector will issue label presence output signal LPO. Cole, 9:45-49, 10:44-50.
`
`(i) electronic label 2 enters
`field of inductor coil 35
`
`(iii) presence detector 4
`detects impedance change
`and outputs label
`presence output signal
`Cole, Fig. 11 (annotated).
`
`(ii) impedance of coil 35
`changes
`
`
`
`
`1 Cole uses the terms “inductor” and “coil” interchangeably. See, e.g., Cole, 9:38-
`
`46.
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 24 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`presence detector 4
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`coil 35 and
`capacitor 41
` (resonant circuit)
`
`
`
`
`
`label
`presence
`output signal
`
`Cole, Fig. 12 (annotated).
`
`3. Reasons to Combine Tobergte and Cole
`46. For the reasons set forth below, it is my opinion that a POSITA would
`
`have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cole with those of Tobergte. It
`
`would have been obvious, beneficial, and predictable to apply Cole’s impedance-
`
`based presence detecting technique to Tobergte’s fixed station—for example, to
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 25 of 78
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`fully automate the switching on of Tobergte’s communication element and
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`improve ease of operation.
`
`47. As an initial matter, a POSITA, when considering the teachings of
`
`Tobergte would have also considered the teachings of Cole. Both Tobergte and
`
`Cole relate to contactless communications using resonant circuits. See Tobergte,
`
`3:18-19 (“The [data] carrier 1 comprises a co