UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PEAG LLC (d/b/a JLab Audio), AUDIO PARTNERSHIP LLC and AUDIO
`PARTNERSHIP PLC (d/b/a Cambridge Audio),
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VARTA MICROBATTERY GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REVISED CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 1 of 48
`EVE Energy v. VARTA
`IPR2022-01484
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................... 3 
`PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 ......................... 3 
`A. 
`The Number of Substitute Claims is Reasonable
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3) ....................................................................... 4 
`The Amendments Are Responsive
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(i) ................................................................... 5 
`The Amendments Are Non-Broadening
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii) .................................................................. 6 
`The Amendments Are Supported
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii) .................................................................. 9 
`IV.  DISCUSSION OF THE PRELIMINARY GUIDANCE .............................. 14 
`V. 
`PATENTABILITY OF THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ................................ 14 
`A. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) ....................................... 15 
`B. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 15 
`C. 
`Substitute Independent Claim 14 ........................................................ 16 
`1. 
`The Combinations of Kaun and Kobayashi .............................. 17 
`2. 
`The Combination of Kannou, Kaun, and
`Kwon or Kawamura .................................................................. 21 
`Substitute Independent Claims 23 ....................................................... 22 
`D. 
`Substitute Dependent Claims 15–22, 24, and 25 ................................ 23 
`E. 
`VI.  DUTY OF CANDOR .................................................................................... 23 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 24 
`APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................... A-1 
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 2 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`
`Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal,
`872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 14
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 7
`In re Fine,
`837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 23
`In re Freeman,
`30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ................................................................................ 7
`Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01129, -01130, Paper 15 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) ..... 4, 5, 6, 9, 14, 15, 23
`Tillotson Ltd. v. Walbro Corp.,
`831 F.2d 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .............................................................................. 7
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 9
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................................................6, 9
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ............................................................................................... 4, 5, 24
`35 U.S.C. § 371 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`Regulations 
`37 C.F.R. § 1.121 .................................................................................................. A-1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.11 ..................................................................................................... 23
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121 .................................................................... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 24
`
`ii
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 3 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`2001 Email Chain dated April 27, 2020
`2002 First Amended Consolidation Order, 2:20-cv-00051-JRG, Dkt. 021
`(E.D. Tex., May 7, 2020)
`2003 Discovery Order, 2:20-cv-00051-JRG, Dkt 051 (E.D. Tex., June 10,
`2020)
`2004 Docket Control Order, 2:20-cv-00051-JRG, Dkt. 054 (E.D. Tex., June
`11, 2020)
`2005 Defendants’ Opposed Motion to Stay, 2:20-cv-00051-JRG, Dkt. 064
`(E.D. Tex., Aug. 20, 2020)
`2006 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay, 2:20-cv-00051-
`JRG, Dkt. 65 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 3, 2020)
`2007 Order Denying Stay, 2:20-cv-00051-JRG, Dkt. 68 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 7,
`2020)
`2008 Complaint for Patent Infringement, 2:20-cv-00138-JRG Dkt. 001 (E.D.
`Tex., May 4, 2020)
`2009 Complaint for Patent Infringement, 2:20-cv-00071-JRG, Dkt. 001 (E.D.
`Tex., March 4, 2020)
`2010 Answer to Complaint for Patent Infringement, 2:20-cv-00051-JRG, Dkt.
`26 (E.D. Tex., May 13, 2020)
`
`2011
`
`Joint Motion for Entry of Docket Control Order, 2:20-cv-00051-JRG,
`Dkt. 045, (E.D. Tex., June 8, 2020)
`2012 Defendants’ P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions, 2:20-cv-00051-JRG, (E.D.
`Tex., July 10, 2020)
`
`2013 U.S. Publication No. 2003/0013007 to Kaun (“Kaun ’007”)
`
`iii
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 4 of 48
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`
`2014 Reserved
`
`2015 Reserved
`
`2016 Reserved
`
`2017 Reserved
`
`2018 Reserved
`
`2019 Reserved
`
`2020 Reserved
`
`2021 Reserved
`
`2022 Reserved
`
`2023 Reserved
`
`2024 Reserved
`
`2025
`IEC-62133-2 Standard
`2026 Button Cell, WIKIPEDIA (Dec. 3, 2020, 11:24 AM),
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button_cell
`
`2027 Button Cell Battery Safety Act, S. 1165, 112th Cong. (2011)
`
`2028 FIG. 11 of U.S. Publication No. 2005/0233212 to Kaun
`
`2029
`
`Rolled-Ribbon Cell Design, Rolled-Ribbon Battery Company,
`http://www.rolled-ribbon.com/downloads/D-
`RRBC_Cell%20Design_20190827_11x17.pdf (last visited Mar. 28,
`2021)
`
`2030 William H. Gardner Deposition Testimony – Days 1-2 (Mar. 3-4, 2021)
`
`iv
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 5 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2031
`
`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
`2032 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
`2033 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
`
`2034 Reserved
`
`2035 Reserved
`
`2036
`
`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)
`
`2037 Reserved
`
`2038
`
`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)
`
`2039 Reserved
`
`2040 Disclosure Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.11 for U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581
`
`2041 Reserved
`
`2042 Reserved
`
`2043 Declaration of Martin C. Peckerar, Ph.D.
`
`2044 Curriculum Vitae of Martin C. Peckerar, Ph.D.
`
`2045 Declaration of Philipp Miehlich
`
`2046 Declaration of Dr. Hans Jürgen Lindner
`
`v
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 6 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2047 Excerpt of http://rolled-ribbon.com/technology.html
`
`2048 Reserved
`
`2049 Reserved
`
`2050 Supplemental Declaration of Martin C. Peckerar, Ph.D.
`
`2051 William H. Gardner Deposition Testimony – Day 3 (Jul. 28, 2021)
`
`2052
`
`Updated 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)
`
`2053 Reserved
`
`2054 Reserved
`2055 Updated Disclosure Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.11 for U.S. Patent No.
`9,496,581
`
`2056 Reserved
`
`2057 Reserved
`2058 Excerpt from Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No.
`13/146,669
`
`2059
`
`International Publication Number WO 2019/010419 of Application No.
`PCT/EP2010/000787
`
`vi
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 7 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`VARTA Microbattery GmbH (“Patent Owner”) submits this Revised
`
`Contingent Motion to Amend in response to the Board’s Preliminary Guidance
`
`(“PG”) dated July 21, 2021, Paper 26. Patent Owner includes revised contingent
`
`substitute claims for U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 (“the ’581 patent”) that even
`
`further patentably distinguish the references advanced by Petitioner by including,
`
`for example, the following features (underlined text reflects added limitations,
`
`strikethrough text indicates deletions):
`
`(1) “a housing cup including a flat bottom area and a cup casing extending
`
`along an axial direction and a housing top including a flat top area and a top
`
`casing extending along the axial direction, the housing cup and the housing
`
`top separated from one another by an electrically insulating seal and which
`
`form a button cell housing with a flat bottom area and a the flat top area
`
`parallel to it the flat bottom area”;
`
`(2) “wherein the cup casing partially overlaps the top casing in an
`
`overlapping area, the top casing is disposed radially inward of the cup casing
`
`in the overlapping area, the housing cup and the housing top are held
`
`together by a force-fitting connection”; and
`
`1
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 8 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`(3) “wherein the cup casing includes a first part proximal to the flat bottom
`
`area and a second part disposed in the overlapping area, the first part of the
`
`cup casing being disposed radially inward with respect to the second part.”
`
`(collectively referred to as “the new housing cup and top features” below). The
`
`button cell recited in the contingent substitute claims provides highly efficient use
`
`of battery real estate and includes a highly reliable interconnection between
`
`internal components and the housing. These features provide a battery with both
`
`excellent energy density and reliable charge-discharge cycling stability.
`
`The number of substitute claims is reasonable, and the proposed
`
`amendments are not broadening. This Revised Contingent Motion details support
`
`for the new claim features. Although Patent Owner does not bear the burden of
`
`proof, Patent Owner offers comments on patentability to aid the Board in
`
`evaluating these contingent substitute claims. The ’581 claims, and specifically the
`
`features defined by these substitute claims, are not taught or suggested by the prior
`
`art asserted by Petitioner. The substitute claims are therefore patentable, not only
`
`for the reasons articulated in Patent Owner’s Response and Sur-Reply, but for the
`
`additional reasons discussed below. Should an original claim of the ’581 patent be
`
`found unpatentable, this Revised Contingent Motion should be considered and
`
`granted.
`
`2
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 9 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`To the extent the Board finds any of original claims 1–12 unpatentable in
`
`this proceeding, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board consider this
`
`Revised Contingent Motion and grant entry of corresponding substitute claims 14–
`
`25. See Appendix A and Table (below). Substitute claims 14–25 are proposed on
`
`a contingent basis, and should therefore only be entered as to any corresponding
`
`original claim found unpatentable.
`
`Original ’581 Patent
`Claim
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`
`Contingent Substitute
`Claim
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`III. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`“Before considering the patentability of any substitute claims … the Board
`
`first must determine whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and
`
`3
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 10 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.”
`
`Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, -01130, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB
`
`Feb. 25, 2019). In particular, the substitute claims must be: (1) presented in a
`
`claim listing; (2) reasonable in number; (3) responsive to a ground of
`
`unpatentability involved in the trial; (4) non-broadening; and (5) supported by the
`
`written description. Id. at 4–8.
`
`Patent Owner’s claim listing is attached hereto as Appendix A. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.121(b). The claim listing includes all issued claims 1–13 (designated
`
`as “original”) and the proposed contingent substitute claims 14–25, as well as an
`
`annotated version of the substitute claims applying Petitioner’s element labelling
`
`with additional elements as appropriate for the amendments made in the substitute
`
`claims. For the reasons stated below, the statutory and regulatory requirements for
`
`a motion to amend are met.
`
`A. The Number of Substitute Claims is Reasonable
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3)
`“There is a rebuttable presumption that a reasonable number of substitute
`
`claims per challenged claim is one (1) substitute claim.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at
`
`4. Patent Owner proposes twelve contingent substitute claims (claims 14–25),
`
`each of which corresponds to one challenged claim (original claims 1–12,
`
`respectively). Because there is a one-to-one relationship between the challenged
`
`original claims and the contingent substitute claims, this is presumptively a
`
`4
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 11 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`reasonable number. Id. at 4–5; 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3); see also 35 U.S.C. §
`
`316(d)(1)(B).
`
`B.
`
`The Amendments Are Responsive
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(i)
`The amendments made in the contingent substitute claims are responsive to
`
`the grounds of unpatentability under Section 103 involved in this proceeding. In
`
`particular, Kaun and Kobayashi (either alone or in combination) fail to disclose or
`
`render obvious a button cell having the combination of features recited in revised
`
`substitute independent claim 14, including, for example, the new housing cup and
`
`top features identified above in the Introduction (Section I). These features are
`
`present in all of the other substitute claims which all depend from claim 1 or
`
`incorporate those same features in the case of substitute method claims 23–25. See
`
`Section V (below) for additional details concerning how the substitute claims are
`
`patentably distinguishable over the references Petitioner relies upon in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Because substitute claims 14–25 each add novel and nonobvious feature
`
`combinations that further distinguish the references Kaun and Kobayashi, which
`
`formed the basis for instituting this proceeding, (Paper No. 8 at 6, 48), they are
`
`therefore responsive. See Appendix A; Section V (below); see also Lectrosonics,
`
`Paper 15 at 6–7 (holding that “a proposed substitute claim adding a novel and
`
`5
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 12 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`nonobvious feature or combination to avoid the prior art in an instituted ground of
`
`unpatentability” will meet the requirements of § 42.121(a)(2)(i) and (ii)).
`
`In addition to including additional features that are not disclosed in Kaun or
`
`Kobayashi, the substitute claims include amendments that re-define the invention
`
`to even more clearly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as
`
`the invention under Section 112 without broadening the scope of the substitute
`
`claims relative to their corresponding original claims. This is permissible because
`
`“[t]he rule does not require … that every word added to or removed from a claim
`
`in a motion to amend be solely for the purpose of overcoming an instituted
`
`ground.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 5. Rather, “once a proposed claim includes
`
`amendments to address a prior art ground in the trial, a patent owner also may
`
`include additional limitations to address [other] potential … issues,” including
`
`potential Section 112 issues. Id. at 5–6.
`
`C. The Amendments Are Non-Broadening
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii)
`The substitute claims do not seek to enlarge the scope of the original claims
`
`in any respect. Instead, they are narrower. In particular, each substitute
`
`independent claim is non-broadening because novel and nonobvious feature
`
`combinations have been added thereto that distinguish the prior art underlying the
`
`grounds advanced in this proceeding. See Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 7. In
`
`particular, the substitute claims comply with the broadening bar in 37 C.F.R. §
`
`6
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 13 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`42.121(a)(2)(ii) because the proposed substitute claims do not encompass any
`
`button cell or method that would not have been covered by the original claims. In
`
`re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing
`
`Tillotson Ltd. v. Walbro Corp., 831 F.2d 1033, 1037 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re
`
`Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
`
`Because the substitute independent claims are narrower than the original
`
`independent claims, the dependent claims are necessarily narrower than the
`
`corresponding original dependent claims. The minor typographical modifications
`
`and changes in dependency implemented in these claims do not broaden the scope
`
`of the claims of the challenged patent. Moreover, several of the dependent claims
`
`have been further narrowed with the inclusion of one or more additional features.
`
`Proposed Substitute Claim 14 (independent). Substitute independent claim
`
`14 is directed to a button cell and includes all of the features of original claim 1,
`
`but also adds additional features. For example, substitute claim 14 now specifies
`
`the new housing cup and top features identified above in the Introduction (Section
`
`I). Substitute claim 14 includes other additional features such as, e.g., that the
`
`electrode-separator assembly is a “rechargeable lithium-ion” type and that “a metal
`
`foil output conductor” is used to connect one of the electrodes to the housing.
`
`Substitute claim 14 also includes amendments that are directed to more clearly
`
`7
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 14 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`reciting the limitations present in original claim 1 and that do not act to broaden the
`
`substitute claim in any respect.
`
`Proposed Substitute Claim 23 (independent). Substitute independent claim
`
`23 is directed to a method for producing a button cell and includes all of the
`
`features of original claim 10. Original claim 10 is directed to “a method for
`
`producing a button cell according to claim 1.” In substitute claim 23, the phrase
`
`“according to claim 1” has been replaced with a recitation of all of the features of
`
`substitute claim 14, which, as explained above, includes all of the features of
`
`original claim 1 and additional, narrowing features. Substitute claim 23 includes
`
`other additional steps such as, e.g., a metallic housing top “inserting” step and
`
`“applying” and “forming” steps related to the housing cup. The deletion of certain
`
`language in the steps of claim 23 is made to remove features that have already been
`
`recited in claim 23 such that their deletion is non-broadening.
`
`Proposed Substitute Claims 15–22, 24, and 25 (dependent). Substitute
`
`dependent claims 15–22, 24, and 25 retain all of the limitations of the
`
`corresponding original dependent claims 2–9, 11, and 12. See Appendix A. The
`
`substitute dependent claims 15–22, 24, and 25 are also non-broadening because
`
`they add novel and nonobvious feature combinations (at least by virtue of being
`
`dependent from one of substitute independent claims 14 and 23) that distinguish
`
`the cited prior art. See Appendix A; Section V (below); see also Lectrosonics,
`
`8
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 15 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`Paper 15 at 7. The deletions found in substitute dependent claims 21 and 24 are
`
`made to remove features that are now present in substitute claims 14 and 23 from
`
`which they respectively depend such that their deletion is non-broadening.
`
`D. The Amendments Are Supported
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii)
`The revised substitute claims do not introduce any new subject matter.
`
`“[T]he Board requires that a motion to amend set forth written description support
`
`in the originally filed disclosure of the subject patent for each proposed substitute
`
`claim.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 7 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.121(b)(1),
`
`42.121(b)(2)). The ’581 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`14/827,387 (“the ’387 application”) which is a divisional of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 13/146,669 (“the ’669 application”) (now U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,153,835). Ex. 1001 at 1. As shown in the table below, each limitation of the
`
`substitute claims is disclosed in the specification and/or figures of the ’669
`
`application, as filed on July 28, 2011, and for which a Section 371(c) filing date
`
`was given on September 7, 2011. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
`
`1564 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[D]rawings alone may be sufficient to provide the ‘written
`
`description of the invention’ required by § 112, first paragraph.”). Exhibit 2052
`
`sets forth a correspondence of the equivalent disclosure found in the ’387
`
`application.
`
`9
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 16 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`
`Element1 Support in ’669 Application2
`
`14 [pre]
`
`S1–4, ¶¶ [0002]–[0009]; S4, ¶ [0015]; FIG. 5.
`
`14[a]
`
`S1, ¶ [0002]; S4, ¶¶ [0009], [0015]; S5, ¶¶ [0016], [0017];
`
`S12, ¶ [0048]–S13, ¶ [0051]; S15, ¶ [0056]–S16, ¶ [0061];
`
`S21, ¶¶ [0084]–[0086]; FIG. 5.
`
`14[b]
`
`S1, ¶ [0002]; S2, ¶ [0004]; S3, ¶ [0007];
`
`S4, ¶¶ [0009], [0013]–[0015]; S5, ¶ [0018]; S6, ¶ [0021];
`
`S8, ¶ [0031]–S9, ¶ [0036]; S11, ¶ [0046]; S20, ¶¶ [0082], [0083];
`
`S21, ¶ [0087]; FIGS 3a, 3b, 43, and 5.
`
`14[c]
`
`S4, ¶¶ [0009], [0015]; S5, ¶ [0019]; S6, ¶ [0020]; S7, ¶ [0023];
`
`S21, ¶ [0087]; FIG. 5.
`
`14[d]
`
`S4, ¶¶ [0013], [0015]; S6–7, ¶ [0022]; S7, ¶¶ [0023], [0026];
`
`S17, ¶ [0068]; S20, ¶ [0082]; S21, ¶ [0087]; FIGS. 3a, 3b, and 5.
`
`
`1 See the annotated listing of substitute claims in Appendix A for the
`correspondence between elements and claim language of the substitute claims.
`2 Citations are to Exhibit 2032, which contains the “Clean Copy” of the substitute
`specification in the preliminary amendment at 57–79 filed with the original
`application on July 28, 2011, and the original figures filed on July 28, 2011, at 28–
`30. “S[number]” refers to the page of the substitute specification in Exhibit 2032
`at 57–79.
`3 With respect to each citation to FIG. 4 of the ’669 application, reference is also
`made to replacement FIG. 4 submitted on May 2, 2014. See Ex. 2058 at 8.
`
`10
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 17 of 48
`
`

`

`Element1 Support in ’669 Application2
`
`14[e]
`
`S4, ¶¶ [0014], [0015]; S7, ¶ [0024]; S10, ¶¶ [0039]–[0041];
`
`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`
`S11, ¶¶ [0043], [0044]; S18, ¶ [0075]; S20, ¶ [0083];
`
`S21–22, ¶ [0088]; FIGS. 43 and 5.
`
`See also Ex. 2059 at 25 (specification p. 23), lines 16–26
`
`(German language version of S21–22, ¶ [0088]); Ex. 2038 at 5–6
`
`(verified English translation of same).
`
`14[f]
`
`S4, ¶ [0015]; S12, ¶ [0048]; S12–13, ¶ [0050]; S13, ¶ [0051];
`
`S14, ¶¶ [0052]–[0054]; S14–15, ¶ [0055]; S15, ¶ [0060];
`
`S16, ¶ [0061]; S18, ¶ [0075]; S21, ¶ [0086]; FIG. 5.
`
`14[g]
`
`S4, ¶ [0014]; S12–13, ¶ [0050]; S16, ¶¶ [0062]–[0064];
`
`15–19
`[pre]
`15[a]
`
`S18, ¶ [0075]; FIG. 43.
`
`See support for Claim 14 (Elements 14[pre]–14[g]) above.
`
`S4, ¶¶ [0011], [0015]; S6, ¶ [0021]; S6–7, ¶ [0022];
`
`S18–19, ¶ [0077]; S21, ¶ [0087], FIGS. 1 and 5.
`
`16[a]
`
`S4, ¶¶ [0011], [0015]; S6–7, ¶ [0022]; S7, ¶ [0024]–S8, ¶ [0030];
`
`S18–19, ¶ [0077]; S21, ¶ [0087]; FIGS. 1 and 5.
`
`17[a]
`
`S8, ¶ [0031]–S9, ¶ [0034]; Claim 5, Ex. 2032 at 24.
`
`11
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 18 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`
`Element1 Support in ’669 Application2
`
`18[a’]
`
`S4, ¶ [0015]; S7, ¶ [0024]; S10, ¶¶ [0039]–[0041];
`
`S11, ¶¶ [0043], [0044]; S21–22, ¶ [0088]; FIG. 5.
`
`18[a]
`
`S4, ¶ [0015]; S7, ¶ [0024]; S10, ¶¶ [0039]–[0041];
`
`S11, ¶¶ [0043], [0044]; S21–22, ¶ [0088]; FIG. 5.
`
`19[a]
`
`S4, ¶¶ [0014], [0015]; S10–11, ¶ [0042]; S11, ¶ [0045];
`
`20 and 21
`[pre]
`20[a]
`
`S18, ¶ [0075]; S20, ¶ [0083]; S21–22, ¶ [0088]; FIG. 43.
`
`See support for Claim 19 (Elements 19[pre] and 19[a]) above.
`
`S4, ¶¶ [0014], [0015]; S10–11, ¶ [0042]; S11, ¶ [0045];
`
`S18, ¶ [0075]; S20, ¶ [0083]; S21–22, ¶ [0088]; FIG. 43.
`
`21[a]
`
`S4, ¶ [0015]; S7, ¶ [0023]–S8, ¶ [0028]; S21–22, ¶ [0088];
`
`FIG. 5.
`
`22 [pre]
`
`See support for Claim 14 (Elements 14[pre]–14[g]) above.
`
`22[a]
`
`S11, ¶ [0047].
`
`23 [pre]
`
`S1, ¶ [0002]; S4, ¶ [0010].
`
`See also support for Claim 14 (Elements 14[pre]–14[g]) above.
`
`23[a]
`
`23[b]
`
`S4, ¶ [0010].
`
`S1, ¶ [0002]; S1–2, ¶ [0003]; S4, ¶ [0010].
`
`12
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 19 of 48
`
`

`

`Element1 Support in ’669 Application2
`
`23[c]
`
`S12–13, ¶ [0050]; S14, ¶ [0054]; S14–15, ¶ [0055];
`
`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`
`S15, ¶ [0060].
`
`S12–13, ¶ [0050].
`
`S16, ¶¶ [0062]–[0064].
`
`See support for Claim 23 (Elements 23[pre]–23[e]) above.
`
`S10, ¶ [0039]; S11, ¶¶ [0043], [0044]
`
`S10, ¶ [0039]; S11, ¶ [0043]
`
`S17, ¶¶ [0068], [0069].
`
`S12–13, ¶ [0050].
`
`S12, ¶ [0050]–S16, ¶ [0061].
`
`23[d]
`
`23[e]
`
`24 and 25
`[pre]
`24[a]
`
`24[b]
`
`25[a]
`
`25[a’]
`
`25[b]
`
`
`
`In response to Petitioner’s argument concerning the table of citations Patent
`
`Owner provided in the original Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 15), the Board
`
`“[declined] to adopt a per se rule that string citations, in general, are not sufficient
`
`for Patent Owner to meet its burden under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b).” PG at 6. Patent
`
`Owner submits that the foregoing differentiated citations to specific paragraphs
`
`and figures of the ’669 application for each annotated claim element of each
`
`proposed substitute claim, particularly in view of the discussion found in Dr.
`
`13
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 20 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`Peckerar’s Supplemental Declaration, Ex. 2050, ¶¶ 35–37, makes evident that there
`
`is written description support for each substitute claim.
`
`IV. DISCUSSION OF THE PRELIMINARY GUIDANCE
`With particular reference to the inclusion in the original substitute claims of
`
`a “radial seal” (claim element 14[a]) and “a metal foil output conductor …
`
`including a bend portion … and a flat portion” (claim elements 14[e]), which were
`
`discussed in the Board’s PG at 7–14, the Board’s preliminary, non-binding view
`
`was that Patent Owner had not shown support for the “radial seal” limitation, PG at
`
`7, and that Petitioner had shown the newly asserted Kannou combination disclosed
`
`original claim element 14[e] and rendered original substitute claims 14–25
`
`obvious, PG at 12–14. Patent Owner respectfully disagrees strongly with these
`
`preliminary views and does not acquiesce in any way to them. Nonetheless, Patent
`
`Owner has removed the express recitation of such features from the revised
`
`substitute claims and has re-formulated the substitute claims to even more clearly
`
`patentably distinguish over the prior art, thereby rendering these preliminary views
`
`moot.
`
`V.
`
`PATENTABILITY OF THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS
`Patent Owner does not bear the burden of proving the patentability of
`
`substitute claims 14–25. See Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 3–4; Aqua Prods., Inc. v.
`
`Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1295-96, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc). Instead,
`
`14
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 21 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See
`
`Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4. Nonetheless, Patent Owner offers the following
`
`comments on patentability to aid the Board in evaluating the proposed substitute
`
`claims.
`
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA)
`Patent Owner submits that a POSA would have had a good working
`
`understanding of the design and manufacture of batteries and cells, and would
`
`possess a Bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or chemical engineering or
`
`equivalent. Ex. 2043 (Peckerar Decl.) ¶ 40. A POSA would also have two to three
`
`years of experience working in a related technology. Id. Alternatively, a POSA
`
`could have Ph.D. or a Master’s degree or its equivalent and less experience, but
`
`would have at least some experience in battery design and manufacture. Id.
`
`Petitioner proposed a slightly different definition of a POSA. Paper 1 at 16.
`
`The substitute claims are patentable regardless of which definition is used.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`“Only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the
`
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Institution Decision, Paper 8 at 22–
`
`23 (citations omitted). As outlined in its Response, Patent Owner contends
`
`Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions are irrelevant as being directed to
`
`language not found in the challenged claims or incorrect as departing from the
`
`15
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 22 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`plain and ordinary meaning of the terms in the challenged claims as would be
`
`understood by a POSA on consideration of the intrinsic record. Patent Owner
`
`submits that the claim constructions it has advanced should be applied herein to the
`
`extent the Board finds it necessary to do so. Patent Owner asserts that no express
`
`constructions of the added language in the substitute claims are required to find
`
`substitute claims 14–25 patentable. All such terms should therefore be given their
`
`plain and ordinary meanings consistent with the context of the entire disclosure of
`
`the ’581 patent as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA). Id. at
`
`21. Patent Owner reserves the right to advance its own constructions for any claim
`
`term constructions Petitioner provide in response to this Revised Contingent
`
`Motion.
`
`C.
`Substitute Independent Claim 14
`Substitute claim 14 recites a button cell comprising a “housing cup” and a
`
`“housing top,” which together form a “button cell housing” in which “[a] cup
`
`casing partially overlaps [a] top casing in an overlapping area, the top casing is
`
`disposed radially inward of the cup casing in the overlapping area, and the housing
`
`cup and the housing top are held together by a force-fitting connection,” (claim
`
`element 14[f]). Furthermore, “the cup casing includes a first part proximal to [its]
`
`flat bottom area and a second part disposed in the overlapping area, [and] the first
`
`part of the cup casing [is] disposed radially inward with respect to the second part.”
`
`16
`
`VARTA Ex. 2035 Page 23 of 48
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 B2
`Claim element 14[g]. The references asserted by Petitioner in this IPR and other
`
`proceedings, do not, either alone or in combination, disclose or suggest the
`
`foregoing button cell housing features. Furthermore, the evidence establishes that
`
`a POSA would not have found it obvious to modify those references to arrive at the
`
`combination of features in substitute claim 14. See Ex. 2050 (Peckerar Supp.
`
`Decl.) ¶¶ 46–64.
`
`1.
`The Combinations of Kaun and Kobayashi
`Kaun does not disclose a button cell housing in which “the housing cup and
`
`the housing top are held together by a force-fitting connection”—as is required by
`
`element 14[f]. Instead, Kaun’s housing is designed to allow gas pressure, which is
`
`“generated during battery operation and during battery degradation conditions” to
`
`safely escape from the cell. Ex. 1005 at ¶ [0023].
`
`Kaun is directed to improving performance of high amperage cells, e.g.
`
`capable of providing currents of 100-200A, and th