UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
` EVE ENERGY CO. LTD
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VARTA MICROBATTERY GMBH,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00474
`Patent 9,496,581
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 1 of 65
`EVE Energy v. VARTA
`IPR2022-01484
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`II.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 5
`III.
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`V.
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................... 6
`Burden of Proof ..................................................................................... 6
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 6
`Anticipation ........................................................................................... 8
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................... 9
`U.S. Patent No. 3,748,182 (“Brown”) ................................................... 9
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0124973 (“Arai”) ...... 12
`European Patent No. 0 829 105 (“Okochi”) ........................................ 13
`Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 101286572
`(“Higuchi”) .......................................................................................... 15
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H07-153488
`(“Kageyama”) ...................................................................................... 17
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 2003-031266
`(“Kano”) .............................................................................................. 18
`VII. CLAIMS 1-13 ARE NOT OBVIOUS (GROUNDS 1 AND 2) .................... 20
`Petitioner’s Arguments ........................................................................ 20
`Claims 1-12 Are Patentable Over Brown in Combination
`with Arai, Okochi, and Higuchi (Ground 1) ....................................... 21
`No Motivation Modify Brown with the Output Conductor
` of Arai and Ockochi ................................................................. 23
`a)
`No Motivation to Modify Connecting Strip 21 .............. 23
`b)
`Brown’s Hollow Socket Member 16 Is Not a Foil ......... 28
`c)
`No Motivation to Replace Brown’s Hollow Socket
`Member 16 with a Foil ................................................... 29
`No Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................... 31
`i
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 2 of 65
`
`

`

`a)
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`c)
`
`b)
`
`No Reasonable Expectation of Success in
`Rerouting Brown’s Connecting Strip ............................. 32
`No Reasonable Expectation of Success in
`Replacing Hollow Socket Member 16 with a Foil ......... 33
`No Reasonable Expectation of Success in
`Implementing Output Conductors of
`Cylindrical Cells in a Button Cell .................................. 34
`Claim 13 is Patentable Over Brown, Arai, Okochi, Higuchi,
`Kageyama (Ground 2) ......................................................................... 37
`Secondary Considerations Provide Compelling Evidence of
`Patentability ......................................................................................... 39
`Nexus......................................................................................... 40
`Unexpected Results ................................................................... 41
`The Claimed Technology Has Enjoyed Tremendous
`Commercial Success ................................................................. 43
`The Claimed Technology Has Received Industry Praise ......... 46
`The ’581 Patent Spawned an Entirely New Area of
`Consumer Products ................................................................... 47
`Others Have Copied the Claimed Technology ......................... 48
`VIII. CLAIMS 1–2, 4–5 AND 8–1 ARE NOT ANTICIPATED BY KANO ....... 49
`Kano Fails to Disclose Each Element of the Challenged Claims ....... 49
`Petitioners Should Be Precluded From Relying on Ex. 3003 ............. 53
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 55
`
`ii
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 3 of 65
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 46
`
`Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal,
`872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 6
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 46
`Chemours Co. FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries Ltd.,
`4 F.4th 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................... 31
`Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................ 43
`Dayco Products, Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc.,
`329 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..........................................................................8, 9
`Finisar Corporation v. DirecTV Group, Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 8
`Ford Motor Co. v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
`No. IPR2019-01401, 2021 WL 531704 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2021) ................. 6, 26
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................... 6
`In re Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 7
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959) .............................................................................. 31
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 7, 8, 37
`Interconnect Planning Corporation v. Fiel,
`774 F.2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 47
`
`iii
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 4 of 65
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................... 7
`Microsoft Corporation v. Secure Web Conference Corporation,
`IPR2014-00745, Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 29, 2014) .................................7, 8
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 8
`Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 28
`Plas-Pak Industries, Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 F. App’x 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................... 34
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation,
`IPR2012-00041, Paper No. 16 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013) ...................................... 7
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 31, 33
`Unified Patents Inc. v. DivX, LLC,
`IPR2019-01379, Paper 52 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2021) ............................................... 7
`University of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC,
`__ F.4th __, __, 2021 WL 5114660 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2021) .............................. 36
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 40
`Wowza Media Systems, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. April 8, 2013) ....................................... 7
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 5 of 65
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`EXHIBITS CITED
`
`Description
`
`2001
`JP 2007-294111A (with translation)
`2002 Button Cell, WIKIPEDIA (Dec. 3, 2020),
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button_cell
`
`2003 Drawing of outer faces of Kano winding
`
`2004 Declaration of Martin C. Peckerar, Ph.D.
`
`2005 Curriculum Vitae of Martin C. Peckerar, Ph.D.
`
`2006 Marc Juzkow Deposition Testimony – October 14, 2021
`
`2007 Disclosure Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.11 for U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581
`
`2008 Declaration of Philipp Miehlich
`
`2009 Declaration of Dr. Hans Jürgen Lindner
`
`2010
`
`Iain Martin, The Tiny Batter Powering AirPods Built a $1.9 Billion
`Fortune, FORBES (Apr. 9, 2020),
`https://www.forbes.com/sites/iainmartin/2020/04/09/how-a-tiny-battery-
`thanks-apple-built-a-new-19-billion-fortune/?sh=6aabf9063d72
`
`2011
`Jonathan Merz Deposition Testimony – October 19, 2021
`2012 Originally Filed Disclosure of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/146,669
`(U.S. Patent No. 9,153,835) Extracted from the Prosecution File History
`2013 Originally Filed Disclosure of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/827,387
`(U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581) Extracted from the Prosecution File History
`
`2014
`
`Table of Corresponding Disclosures in U.S. Patent Application Nos.
`13/146,669 (U.S. Patent No. 9,153,835) and 14/827,387 (U.S. Patent
`No. 9,496,581)
`
`v
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 6 of 65
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`2015 Excerpt from Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No.
`13/146,669
`
`2016
`
`Response to Office Action and Verified English Translation of Portion
`of PCT/EP2010/000787 Extracted from the Prosecution File History of
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/827,387 (U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581)
`
`2017
`
`International Publication Number WO 2010/089152 of Application No.
`PCT/EP2010/000787
`
`vi
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 7 of 65
`
`

`

`Varta Microbattery GmbH (“Patent Owner”) submits this Response to the
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`
`Petition (Paper 2) of EVE Energy Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner” or “EVE”) in the inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 (“the ’581 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Button cells are small batteries, sized and shaped like a button, that power
`
`electronic devices such as hearing aids, car remotes and the like. The ’581 Patent
`
`is directed to a new generation of button cells that provides greater levels of energy
`
`and longer battery life. The patented button cells do so by efficiently packing a
`
`wound (“jelly roll”) electrode assembly and foil conductors into a button-sized
`
`housing and safely sealing the housing cup and top. The patented cells have given
`
`rise to new generations of devices such as the now ubiquitous wireless earbuds.
`
`Patent Owner sells the patented batteries under the name CoinPower®. Those
`
`products have enjoyed tremendous commercial success with anticipated sales in
`
`2021 of about 200 million units purely because of the patented features. They have
`
`been recognized for their unprecedented performance throughout the industry and
`
`have been the target of copying by others including Petitioner EVE.
`
`Petitioner’s contention that the ’581 Patent is obvious over Brown in
`
`combination with Arai, Okochi, Higuchi and Kageyama (Grounds 1 and 2) is
`
`without merit—a classic application of impermissible hindsight. Brown does not
`
`disclose or suggest “an output conductor comprising a foil resting flat between an
`
`1
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 8 of 65
`
`

`

`end face of the spiral winding and the flat … area [of the housing] to which it is
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`connected,” as is required by all claims. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSA”) “could” make the combination to maximize the use of the
`
`interior capacity of the housing. But Petitioner does not explain why and how a
`
`POSA in 2009 would have employed isolated teachings in Arai, Okochi, Higuchi
`
`and Kageyama to use a flat foil output conductor in Brown, when doing so would
`
`not have resulted in any space saving at all. And when doing so would have
`
`eviscerated Brown’s stated purpose to provide a way to interconnect multiple cells
`
`together in series, and therefore, would have fundamentally changed the manner in
`
`which Brown functioned.
`
`Petitioner’s contention that Kano anticipates claims 1-2, 4-5 and 8-11 also
`
`lacks merit. Kano does not disclose an output conductor comprising a foil resting
`
`flat between an end face of a spiral winding and a flat area of a housing. At his
`
`deposition, Petitioner’s expert conceded that Kano fails to show this feature.
`
`Petitioner’s anticipation challenge remarkably rests on its expert’s opinion that the
`
`Kano figures are wrong. This is hardly the showing required for anticipation.
`
`Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the ’581 Patent
`
`claims are unpatentable on any of the proposed grounds. The Board should reject
`
`Petitioner’s invalidity challenges.
`
`2
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 9 of 65
`
`

`

`II. BACKGROUND
`The ’581 Patent relates to a button cell battery that maximizes the energy
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`density of the available interior space, that has excellent battery life (i.e., maintains
`
`power over many cycles) and structural robustness, and that safely closes without
`
`the need for beading between the housing halves. An electrode-separator assembly
`
`consisting of ribbons of a positive electrode, negative electrode and separator in
`
`between is formed as a spiral winding. It is positioned in the housing so that the
`
`electrodes are perpendicular to the flat bottom and top areas of a housing cup and
`
`housing top. Such an electrode assembly is known as a “jelly roll.”
`
`Output conductors in the form of metal foils lie flat within the housing and
`
`provide the critical electrical connections between the electrodes and the housing
`
`cup and top, consuming essentially no space. The flexible foils withstand the
`
`radial and axial forces of expansion and contraction that the jelly roll undergoes
`
`during charging and discharging cycles and permit electrically stable, minimal loss
`
`connections. To further maximize interior cell space for active electrode material,
`
`the housing cup and top may be closed without being beaded over. Various
`
`combinations of these features provide for a robust button cell with unprecedented
`
`energy density and life.
`
`Figures 3b and 4 show an embodiment in which electrodes 407 of one
`
`polarity (highlighted in orange) and the electrodes 408 of the other polarity
`
`3
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 10 of 65
`
`

`

`(highlighted in yellow) are wound in a spiral configuration (shown generally in
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`FIG. 3b). The electrodes 407, 408 are separated from each other by separator
`
`layers 405, 406. The separator layers are made of non-conductive material that
`
`allows for ionic flow.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 11 of 65
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`The lower housing cup 401 and the upper housing top 402 are fitted together
`
`to form a housing about the electrode-separator assembly. A seal 403 is interposed
`
`between the housing cup and top to prevent a short circuit between the two. In
`
`certain embodiments, insulators (e.g., elements 411, 412 in blue) electrically shield
`
`the electrode-separator assembly from the housing.
`
`Metal foil output conductors (e.g., elements 409, 410 in red) “resting flat”
`
`between the end faces of the spiral winding and the flat top and flat bottom
`
`electrically connect the electrodes of the electrode-separator assembly to the top
`
`and bottom of the housing.
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A POSA would have had a good working understanding of the design and
`
`manufacture of batteries and cells, and would have possessed a Bachelor’s degree
`
`in electrical, mechanical or chemical engineering or equivalent. A POSA would
`
`also have had two to three years of experience working in a related technology.
`
`Ex. 2004, Declaration of Dr. Martin Peckerar (“Peckerar”), ¶ 38. Petitioner
`
`proposed a different definition of a POSA having essentially the same educational
`
`background, but specifying three to four years of experience. Pet. at 16. The
`
`claims are patentable regardless of which definition is used.
`
`5
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 12 of 65
`
`

`

`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any claim construction beyond
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms in the challenged claims.
`
`V. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
` Burden of Proof
`In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to
`
`prove “unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`That “burden never shifts to the patentee.” Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d
`
`1290, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
` Obviousness
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`
`determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Ford
`
`Motor Co. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., No. IPR2019-01401, 2021 WL 531704, at *6
`
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2021).
`
`“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior
`
`art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “This is so because
`
`inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since
`6
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 13 of 65
`
`

`

`uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`what, in some sense, is already known.” Id. at 418–19. “[M]ere conclusory
`
`statements” are not sufficient to satisfy the burden of proving obviousness. Wowza
`
`Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc., IPR2013-00054, Paper No. 12 at 15 (P.T.A.B.
`
`April 8, 2013); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016).
`
`“An obviousness determination requires finding ʻa motivation to combine
`
`accompanied by a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed in the
`
`patent-at-issue.’” Unified Patents Inc. v. DivX, LLC, IPR2019-01379, Paper 52 at
`
`9 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2021) (quoting Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge
`
`Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). A petition must both “clearly point
`
`out the differences between the claimed invention and [the prior art]” and “explain
`
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed subject
`
`matter obvious in spite of those differences.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
`
`Corp., IPR2012-00041, Paper No. 16 at 14 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013). The
`
`Petitioner must also specifically recite where a challenged limitation is found in a
`
`secondary reference, and explain why a POSA would have modified a primary
`
`reference with the recited limitation from the secondary reference. See Microsoft
`
`Corp. v. Secure Web Conf. Corp., IPR2014-00745, Paper No. 12 at 14–15
`
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 29, 2014).
`
`7
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 14 of 65
`
`

`

`“The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed
`
`invention. ‘Failure to consider the appropriate scope of the ... patent’s claimed
`
`invention in evaluating the reasonable expectation of success ... constitutes a legal
`
`error.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1367 (citation omitted).
`
` Anticipation
`A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
`
`claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (to
`
`anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a single prior art reference must
`
`expressly or inherently disclose each claim limitation”). “Because the hallmark of
`
`anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference— in order to anticipate under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four
`
`corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the
`
`claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(citation omitted).
`
`Whether a reference anticipates is assessed from the perspective of an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan. See Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329
`
`F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“‘[T]he dispositive question regarding
`
`anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer
`
`8
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 15 of 65
`
`

`

`from the prior art reference’s teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`that single reference.” (citation omitted))
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
` U.S. Patent No. 3,748,182 (“Brown”)
`Brown discloses a housing designed to provide rapid connection and
`
`alignment with other cells to form a multi-cell battery. See Ex. 1002, 1:11–18, 42-
`
`46 and 2:32–46. The housing is formed of a case 11 and a cover 12, see figure
`
`below. Id., 1:67–2:1. The case 11 has a “first electrically conductive member 14”
`
`in the form of a “threaded metal stud” welded to its bottom side, and the cover 12
`
`has a “second elongated electrically conductive hollow member 16,” which is
`
`illustrated as a threaded metal socket, welded to its interior surface. Id., Fig., 2:5–
`
`13.
`
`Brown further discloses that a “spiral wound assembly 17 of cathode 18 …
`
`and anode 20 is positioned within case 11 and cover 12.” The cathode 18 is
`
`connected at an outer radial surface of the spiral wound assembly to a metallic
`
`connecting strip 21, which is in turn bent out away from the wound assembly and
`
`clamped to the interior of the case 11. Id., Fig. Anode 20 “is in electrical contact
`
`with” the threaded metal socket, i.e. at an inner radial surface of the spiral wound
`
`assembly 17. Id., Fig., 2:13–21.
`
`9
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 16 of 65
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Brown—Figure
`
`
`
`Electrically positive components such as cathode 18, case 11, and threaded metal
`
`stud 14 are illustrated in red/pink, while electrically negative components such as
`
`anode 20, cover 12, and threaded socket 16 are illustrated in blue/purple.
`
`
`
`To facilitate rapid connection and alignment, the cell 10 includes an
`
`electrically conductive externally threaded stud, i.e. “first elongated electrically
`
`conductive member” 14 depicted in red, that is electrically common with the case
`
`11 and therefore part of the positive terminal. Ex. 1002, 2:5-7. The externally
`
`10
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 17 of 65
`
`

`

`threaded stud 14 is electrically common with and connected to the case 11 by
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`virtue of being welded to the exterior surface of the case 11. Id., 2:7-8.
`
`
`
`The cell 10 includes an electrically conductive, internally threaded hollow
`
`stud, in the form of the “second elongated electrically conductive hollow member”
`
`16 depicted in blue. Flanges of the hollow member 16 are welded to the cover 12.
`
`Id., 2:11-12; Ex. 2006 (Juzkow Tr.), 94:16-21.
`
`
`
`Brown discloses the formation of a cell stack by screwing the externally
`
`threaded stud 14 into the threaded bore of the hollow stud 16 of another adjacent
`
`cell 10, thereby allowing the cells to be rapidly connected and aligned. Multiple
`
`additional cells can be connected in the same manner to produce a battery having a
`
`desired voltage. Id., 2:32-46.
`
`
`
`The ability of central threaded socket 16 to receive threaded stud 14 allows
`
`the Brown cell to be readily formed of multiple cells. The threaded socket and
`
`stud form the core of the Brown disclosure and cannot be removed without
`
`fundamentally changing Brown’s intended manner of operation and defeating its
`
`stated objective.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s argument that Brown “could be” modified to have an output
`
`conductor resting flat between an end face of its winding and the flat top or bottom
`
`lacks common sense. Doing so would decrease the space available in Brown for
`
`11
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 18 of 65
`
`

`

`active material and/or eliminate Brown’s ability to be connected to and aligned
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`with other cells.
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0124973 (“Arai”)
`Arai is directed to a cylindrical battery cell for use in electric vehicles. Ex.
`
`1004, ¶ 0001, FIG. 1. The cell includes a battery can 10 (depicted in blue) and a
`
`battery lid 11 (depicted in red) which are separated by a gasket 12. Id., ¶ [0083].
`
`Arai—FIG. 1
`Arai’s cylindrical cell includes an electrode assembly prepared by winding
`
`
`
`positive and negative electrodes and a porous separator sandwiched therebetween.
`
`Id., ¶ [0082]. A positive electrode tab 7 (depicted in red) is welded to the positive
`
`12
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 19 of 65
`
`

`

`electrode and connected to the battery lid 11, and a negative electrode tab 6
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`(depicted in blue) is welded to the negative electrode and connected to the battery
`
`can 10. Id., ¶ [0083].
`
`Arai further discloses that a positive electrode insulator 8 and a negative
`
`electrode insulator 9 (both depicted in green) protect the connection between the
`
`positive electrode tab 7 and the battery lid 11 and the negative electrode tab 6 and
`
`the battery can 10, respectively. Id.
`
`Petitioner relies on Arai for disclosure of an output conductor foil resting
`
`flat. It remained utterly silent on why a POSA would be motivated to use the
`
`teachings from this reference in the cell of Brown, and how that could possibly be
`
`accomplished with any expectation of success, to form the combinations in any of
`
`the challenged claims.
`
` European Patent No. 0 829 105 (“Okochi”)
`Okochi is directed to a cylindrical battery. The cell includes a container 5
`
`(depicted in blue), a terminal plate 7a and a cover plate 7b (both depicted in red)
`
`that are crimped onto a body, and a gasket 7c (depicted in green) that electrically
`
`isolates the container 5 from the terminal plate 7a and cover plate 7b. Ex. 1009,
`
`¶ [0025].
`
`13
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 20 of 65
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Okochi—FIG. 1
`Terminal plate 7a and cover plate 7b form the positive terminal of the
`
`
`
`battery, while cell container 5 forms the negative terminal of the battery. Id.
`
`Okochi’s cylindrical cell further includes an electrode group that is formed by
`
`spirally winding a positive electrode 1 (depicted in light red) and a negative
`
`electrode 2 (depicted in light blue) with a separator 3 (depicted in purple)
`
`therebetween. Id., ¶ [0021]. Okochi discloses that a bottom insulating plate 4
`
`14
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 21 of 65
`
`

`

`(depicted in green) is placed in the cell container 5 and an upper insulating plate 6
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`is mounted on the electrode group. Id., ¶ [0025].
`
`As with Arai, Petitioner relies on Okochi’s disclosure of an output conductor
`
`foil resting flat, but it again does not explain why a POSA would be motivated to
`
`use the teachings from this reference in the cell of Brown, and how that could
`
`possibly be accomplished with any expectation of success, to form the
`
`combinations in any of the challenged claims.
`
` Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 101286572
`(“Higuchi”)
`Higuchi discloses a battery that includes a cylinder 13 (depicted in blue) into
`
`which a wound electrode assembly is placed. The wound body includes an anode
`
`1 (depicted in light blue), a cathode 2 (depicted in light red), and a separator 3
`
`(depicted in purple) disposed therebetween. Ex. 1003, 5:21-23.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 22 of 65
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Higuchi—FIG. 5A
`
`Higuchi—FIG. 5B
` A lower insulating plate 19 (depicted in green) is inserted into the battery
`
`
`
`
`
`cylinder 13, and the wound body 10 is then placed into the battery cylinder 13 such
`
`that the anode lead 11, which is connected to the anode 1, and the cathode lead 12,
`
`which is connected to the cathode 2, extend from the upper side of the wound
`
`body. The cathode lead 12 extends through an aperture in an upper insulating plate
`
`16
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 23 of 65
`
`

`

`14 (depicted in green), and the anode lead 11 passes between the periphery of the
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`upper insulating plate 14 and a side wall of the battery cylinder 13. Id., 7:9-20.
`
`To form an electrical connection between the anode 1 and the battery
`
`terminal 13, the anode lead 11 is sandwiched between the battery cylinder 13 and a
`
`cover 15 (depicted in blue). To form an electrical connection between the cathode
`
`2 and the positive terminal of cell 16 (depicted in red), positive terminal 16 is
`
`welded to the cathode lead 12. Id. 7:9-27.
`
`Petitioner relies on Higuchi’s teachings of a wound spiral electrode
`
`assembly, but it again does not explain why a POSA would be motivated to use the
`
`teachings from this reference in the cell of Brown, and how that could possibly be
`
`accomplished with any expectation of success, to form the combinations in any of
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H07-153488
`(“Kageyama”)
`Kageyama relates to increasing the energy per unit volume in a cylindrical
`
`non-aqueous electrolyte battery. Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 1 and 9-10. Kageyama teaches
`
`preparing a wound electrode assembly by (i) laminating a strip-shaped positive
`
`electrode and a strip-shaped negative electrode with a separator and then (ii)
`
`winding the electrode such that a portion of the separator protrudes above and
`
`below the wound electrodes. Id. ¶ 12. The protruding separator ends are bent by
`
`heat molding. Id.
`
`17
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 24 of 65
`
`

`

`Petitioner does not explain why a POSA would be motivated to use the
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`teachings from this reference in the cell of Brown, and how that could possibly be
`
`accomplished with any expectation of success, to form the combinations in any of
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 2003-031266
`(“Kano”)
`Kano discloses a cell that includes an electrode array 4 housed in a sealed
`
`case formed by affixing a negative electrode case (cap 2) to a positive electrode
`
`case (outer can 1) with an insulating gasket 3 between the perimeter walls. Ex.
`
`1013 ¶ 39. The electrode array 4 includes a positive electrode with a positive
`
`electrode current collector 7 that protrudes from one electrode coil, and a negative
`
`electrode with a negative electrode current collector 6 that protrudes from an
`
`opposite electrode coil. The components of Kano’s battery are illustrated in FIG.
`
`1, reproduced below.
`
`Kano—FIG. 1
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`VARTA Ex. 2023 Page 25 of 65
`
`

`

`The protruding portions of adjacent turns of the positive electrode current
`
`IPR2021-00474
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`collector 7 and the protruding portions of adjacent turns of the negative electrode
`
`current collector 6 are “folded inward” and aligned at an angle with respect to the
`
`outer can 1 and the cap 2, respectively, such that they will directly contact the
`
`housing by spring action. Id., [0039]-[0040]; [0042] (“the folded part is more
`
`subject to resilient force urging the folded part back to its original shape, making it
`
`possible to improve the area of contact between the protruding end and the inner
`