`
`Filed on behalf of: Eve Energy Co., Ltd..
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`U.S. Patent Nos.
`9,153,835
`9,496,581
`9,799,913
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VARTA MICROBATTERY GMBH
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case Nos.
`IPR2022- 01484
`IPR2022- 01486
`IPR2022- 01487
`
`DECLARATION OF MARC JUZKOW
`
`
`
`
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 1
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 8
`I.
`SCOPE OF WORK ....................................................................................... 10
`II.
`III. BASIS FOR OPINIONS ............................................................................... 11
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 11
`B. Obviousness ........................................................................................ 11
`IV. Technical BACKGROUND Overview ......................................................... 14
`A.
`Spiral Wound Electrode Assemblies .................................................. 17
`B.
`Cell Housing ....................................................................................... 19
`C.
`Insulation ............................................................................................ 22
`D. Output Conductor ............................................................................... 23
`E. Welding of Output Conductor ............................................................ 24
`THE PATENTS AT ISSUE .......................................................................... 25
`A.
`The ’835 Patent ................................................................................... 32
`B.
`The ’581 Patent ................................................................................... 34
`C.
`The ’913 Patent ................................................................................... 35
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 37
`VII. SUMMARY OF GROUNDS ....................................................................... 37
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................ 38
`A. Kobayashi ........................................................................................... 38
`B. Kaun .................................................................................................... 40
`C.
`Brown ................................................................................................. 42
`D. Higuchi ............................................................................................... 45
`
`V.
`
`- 1 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 2
`
`

`

`
`
`IX.
`
`Arai ..................................................................................................... 47
`E.
`Okochi ................................................................................................ 50
`F.
`Brenner ............................................................................................... 51
`G.
`’835 PATENT CLAIM ANALYSIS ............................................................ 52
`A. Ground I: Claims 14-25 are obvious by Kobayashi, Kaun, and
`Brenner ............................................................................................... 52
`1.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 52
`2.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 78
`3.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 79
`4.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 80
`5.
`Claim 18 ................................................................................... 81
`6.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 84
`7.
`Claim 20 ................................................................................... 86
`8.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 87
`9.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................... 88
`10. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 89
`11. Claim 24 ................................................................................... 93
`12. Claim 25 ................................................................................... 94
`B. Ground II: Claims 14-25 are obvious by Brown, Higuchi,
`Kaun, Brenner, Arai ........................................................................... 96
`1.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 96
`2.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................. 141
`3.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................. 144
`4.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................. 145
`
`- 2 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 3
`
`

`

`
`
`X.
`
`Claim 18 ................................................................................. 147
`5.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................. 153
`6.
`Claim 20 ................................................................................. 156
`7.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................. 157
`8.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................. 159
`9.
`10. Claim 23 ................................................................................. 161
`11. Claim 24 ................................................................................. 167
`12. Claim 25 ................................................................................. 168
`’581 PATENT CLAIM ANALYSIS .......................................................... 171
`A. Ground I: Claims 14-25 are obvious by Kobayashi and Brenner ... 171
`1.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................. 171
`2.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................. 174
`3.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................. 174
`4.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................. 174
`5.
`Claim 18 ................................................................................. 174
`6.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................. 175
`7.
`Claim 20 ................................................................................. 175
`8.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................. 175
`9.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................. 176
`10. Claim 23 ................................................................................. 176
`11. Claim 24 ................................................................................. 178
`12. Claim 25 ................................................................................. 178
`B. Ground II: Claims 14-25 are obvious by Brown, Higuchi, Arai,
`
`- 3 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 4
`
`

`

`
`
`XI.
`
`and Brenner ....................................................................................... 179
`1.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................. 179
`2.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................. 183
`3.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................. 183
`4.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................. 183
`5.
`Claim 18 ................................................................................. 183
`6.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................. 184
`7.
`Claim 20 ................................................................................. 184
`8.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................. 184
`9.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................. 185
`10. Claim 23 ................................................................................. 185
`11. Claim 24 ................................................................................. 188
`12. Claim 25 ................................................................................. 189
`’913 PATENT CLAIM ANALYSIS .......................................................... 189
`A. Ground I: Claims 9-16 are obvious by Kobayashi in view of
`Brenner ............................................................................................. 189
`1.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................... 189
`2.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................. 191
`3.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................. 191
`4.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................. 192
`5.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................. 193
`6.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................. 193
`7.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................. 193
`
`- 4 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Claim 16 ................................................................................. 194
`8.
`B. Ground II: Claims 9-16 are obvious by Brown, Higuchi, Arai,
`Okochi, Brenner ............................................................................... 194
`1.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................... 194
`2.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................. 205
`3.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................. 205
`4.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................. 205
`5.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................. 206
`6.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................. 207
`7.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................. 207
`8.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................. 207
`XII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ............. 208
`XIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 208 
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 6
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,799,913 (“’913 patent”)
`
`1002 Declaration of Marc Juzkow (“Juzkow Decl.”)
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,799,913 (“’913 FH”)
`
`Japanese Patent Publication. No. 2007-294111 to Kobayashi (“Kobayashi”)
`
`1005 DE102005058132A1 to Brenner et al. (“Brenner”)
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 3,748,182 to Brown (“Brown”)
`
`1007
`
`Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 101286572 (“Higuchi”)
`
`1008
`RESERVED
`1009 David Linden & Thomas B. Reddy, Handbook of Batteries 91 (3d ed. 2002)
`(“Linden”)
`
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,287,719 to Bailey (“Bailey”)
`
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,723,466 to Oogami (“Oogami”)
`
`1012
`
`EP Patent No. 1,315,220 B1 to Masakatsu (“Masakatsu”)
`
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 7,566,515 to Suzuki (“Suzuki”)
`
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 8,236,441 to Gardner (“Gardner”)
`
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 4,224,387 to Nakayama (“Nakayama”)
`
`1016 U.S. Patent No. 6,443,999 to Cantave (“Cantave”)
`
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 5,470,357 to Schmutz (“Schmutz”)
`
`1018
`
`RESERVED
`
`1019 U.S. Patent No. 5,432,027 to Tuttle (“Tuttle”)
`
`1020 U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0124973 (“Arai”)
`
`- 6 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`EP 0829105 to Okochi et al. (“Okochi”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`1023 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0160901 to Kaun (“Kaun”)
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 (“’581 FH”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,153,835 (“’835 FH”)
`
`1026 U.S. Patent No. 9,496,581 (“’581 patent”)
`
`1027 U.S. Patent No. 9,153,835 (“’835 patent”)
`
`1028
`
`E.P. Patent No. 1,886,364 to Ryou (“Ryou”)
`
`1029 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0233212 to Kaun (“Kaun 2005”)
`
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 4,487,819 to Koga (“Koga”)
`
`1031 U.S. Patent Number 6,379,839 to Inoue (“Inoue”)
`
`1032 Deposition Transcript of William Gardner, conducted 3/3/2021
`Engineering Properties of Polyethylene, AWWA Manual M55, 2005
`(https://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/files/publications/documents/samples/
`30055_excerpt.pdf)
`
`1033
`
`1034-
`1041
`
`RESERVED
`
`1042 Deposition Transcript of Martin Peckerar, conducted 09/10/2021
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 8
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Marc Juzkow, declare as follows:
`1.
`I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge and, if called
`
`upon to testify, would endeavor to testify competently to the matters stated herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked by to provide technical assistance in connection with the
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,153,835 (“’835 patent”), 9,496,581 (“’581
`
`patent”), and 9,799,913 (“’913 patent”). This declaration is a statement of my opinions on
`
`issues related to the patentability of claims 14-25 of the ’835 patent (the “’835 Challenged
`
`Claims”), claims 14-25 of the ’581 patent (the “’581 Challenged Claims”), claims 9-16 of
`
`the ’913 patent (the “’913 Challenged Claims”) (collectively the “Challenged Claims”).
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied on my knowledge, training, and
`
`experience in the relevant field, which I have summarized below. Further detail can be
`
`found in my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached as Attachment A to this declaration.
`
`4.
`
`I am a General Partner of Lithiumion Expert Services, LLC. I am also Cell
`
`Supplier Lead of Joby Aviation, LLC. I am an expert in the field of lithium-ion cells. I
`
`have studied, researched, and practiced in the field of electrochemical cells and packaging
`
`for more than 36 years.
`
`5.
`
`I received my Master of Science (M.S.) degree in the field of Chemistry from
`
`Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
`
`6.
`
`After starting my career as a Research Scientist in 1985 with lithium metal
`
`- 8 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 9
`
`

`

`
`
`cells, we transitioned into developing lithium-ion cells in the early 1990’s where I was
`
`Manager, Product Development and Product Evaluation. Our company, Moli Energy was
`
`the first North American company to commercialize lithium-ion technology in 1835.
`
`Between 2000 and 2003, I transitioned into electrochemical double layer capacitor, where
`
`we developed spirally wound cells. Between 2007 and 2014, at Leyden Energy, where I
`
`was VP of R&D, we designed and assembled lithium-ion cylindrical and pouch cells.
`
`Leyden subcontracted the manufacturing of both polymer pouch and cylindrical cells,
`
`assembling over 2 million cells. Particularly important to this case, I also personally
`
`assembled spirally wound prototype cells in a format with a larger diameter than the height
`
`of the cell. Immediately following Leyden Energy’s Chapter 11, I hired five Leyden
`
`engineers and assembly technicians, purchased equipment and die sets, and started a
`
`contract services company. Our typical customer was either a start-up or a large industrial
`
`chemical company that had new lithium-ion cell components but were not skilled in the art
`
`of lithium-ion cell assembly, nor had the equipment required. We also subcontracted on
`
`several DOE contracts, providing cell design, assembly and testing services. At Iontensity,
`
`we assembled and tested coin cells and Al foil-polymer laminate packaged lithium-ion cells
`
`for our customers who typically provided us with one of the many components that make
`
`up a lithium-ion cell. We were responsible for chemical and mechanical cell design,
`
`assembling electrodes, final cell assembly and testing. As I was the leader of a small group
`
`of engineers and technicians, it was important to be hands-on in my role as a team member
`
`- 9 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 10
`
`

`

`
`
`and for training additional personnel we hired. I personally mixed cathode and anode
`
`slurries, coated electrodes on a 2m long roll-to-roll coater, punched electrodes, assembled
`
`coin cells and pouch cells, and ran performance testing. Particularly important to this case
`
`was the assembly of small coin cells with a mechanical design and closure technique
`
`similar to button cells. Following Iontensity, I was the Principal Cell Specialist at NIO,
`
`responsible for the lithium-ion cell technology for this autonomous electric vehicle
`
`company.
`
`II.
`
`SCOPE OF WORK
`
`7.
`
`I have been asked to consider and provide my opinions on the Challenged
`
`Claims. In particular, I have been asked to consider what one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood from the claims and specifications, whether certain references
`
`disclose or suggest the features recited in the Challenged Claims, and whether one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine certain references to arrive at
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`8.
`
`I am compensated at a rate of $300/hour for my work. My compensation is
`
`in no way contingent on the nature of my findings, the presentation of my findings in
`
`testimony, or the outcome of any proceeding.
`
`9.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the Challenged Claims, their
`
`prosecution histories, and the materials in the Table of Exhibits above.
`
`- 10 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 11
`
`

`

`
`
`III. BASIS FOR OPINIONS
`
`10. My opinions set forth below are based on my education, training, experience,
`
`and the content of the references considered. My understanding of the relevant law, as
`
`discussed below, is based on my discussions with counsel for Petitioner.
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`11. My opinions are provided based on what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in the technical field of the invention would have understood at the time of the invention
`
`of the Challenged Claims.
`
`12. Based on my education and experience in the field, I believe that a POSITA
`
`as of the claimed February 9, 2009 priority date is a person holding a bachelor’s degree in
`
`engineering (mechanical, electrical or chemical), general science, materials science or the
`
`equivalent and 3-4 years of work experience with electrochemical cell packaging systems.
`
`13.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the content of a patent and prior art
`
`should be interpreted the way a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have
`
`interpreted those references at the time of the invention of the patent using the ordinary and
`
`customary meanings of the claim terms. I understand that the person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art is a hypothetical concept referring to one who thinks along the lines of conventional
`
`wisdom at the time.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed and understand that subject matter claimed in a patent
`
`- 11 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 12
`
`

`

`
`
`is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`alleged invention was made would have had reason to combine or modify the disclosures
`
`of one or more prior art references to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed and understand that, under the doctrine of obviousness,
`
`a claim is unpatentable 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. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have knowledge of the relevant prior art
`
`at the time of the invention.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed and understand that obviousness is based on the scope
`
`and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claim, the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art and secondary indicia of obviousness and non-obviousness to the
`
`extent such indicia exist.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the determination of whether the
`
`asserted claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and,
`
`therefore, invalid, is not governed by any rigid test or formula. A determination that a
`
`claim is obvious is, instead, based on a common-sense determination that the claimed
`
`invention is merely a combination of known limitations to achieve predictable results. Any
`
`of the following rationales are acceptable justifications to conclude that a claim would have
`
`been obvious: (1) the claimed invention is simply a combination of known prior art
`
`- 12 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 13
`
`

`

`
`
`methods to yield predictable results; (2) the claimed invention is a simple substitution of
`
`one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (3) the claimed invention uses
`
`known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (4)
`
`the claimed invention applies a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (5) the claimed invention was “obvious
`
`to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; (6) there is known work in one field of endeavor that
`
`may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on
`
`design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art; or, (7) there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in
`
`the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art
`
`reference to combine prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed inventions.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim may be obvious in light of
`
`a single reference, without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that
`
`are not found in the reference can be supplied by the common sense or knowledge of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art or taught in different areas of the single reference.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that an analysis of whether a claimed
`
`invention is obvious must not rely on a hindsight combination of prior art. The analysis
`
`must proceed in the context of the time of the invention or claimed priority date and
`
`consider whether the invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`- 13 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 14
`
`

`

`
`
`skill in the art, taking into consideration any interrelated teachings of the prior art, the
`
`effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order
`
`to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine any known elements in the
`
`fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that certain objective indicia can be important evidence regarding
`
`whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious. Such indicia include: commercial success of
`
`products covered by the patent claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts
`
`by others to make the invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected
`
`results achieved by the invention as compared to the closest prior art; praise of the invention
`
`by the infringer or others in the field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others;
`
`expressions of surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention;
`
`and the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`IV. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OVERVIEW
`
`21. The following provides the technology background of the invention disclosed
`
`in the challenged patents in the period leading up to the February 9, 2009 priority date.
`
`22. Generally, batteries generate power by means of an oxidation-reduction
`
`reaction that occurs within its housing. At a basic level, all batteries require at least three
`
`components in order to function: an anode (negative) electrode, which contributes electrons
`
`and is oxidized during discharge; a cathode (positive) electrode which accepts electrons
`
`- 14 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 15
`
`

`

`
`
`and is reduced during discharge; and an electrolyte through which ions are transferred
`
`between the electrodes. See Ex. 1009 (Linden) at 1-2. This electrolyte can be composed of
`
`various materials, either liquid or solid, including water, acids, or alkalis. Id.
`
`23. The form factor of batteries may be varied depending on the application for
`
`which it will be used. For example, the basic configuration of cathode, anode, and
`
`electrolyte can be placed into a rectangular housing, cylindrical housing, or button/coin
`
`housing. Id. at 252-256, 400. Within each respective housing, the arrangement of electrode
`
`and electrolyte layers can also vary.
`
`24.
`
`In button cell batteries, more specifically, which generally have a height-to-
`
`diameter ratio around 1 or less, the electrode layers can be simply stacked on top of one
`
`another, with a porous separator interposed between them and an electrolyte either
`
`impregnated into the separator and electrodes if the electrodes are porous, or impregnated
`
`into the separator and in contact with the electrodes if they are non-porous. See Ex. 1028
`
`(Ryou) at [0009]. This separator must be electrically insulating to prevent a short circuit
`
`from occurring between the electrode layers. One such cell is reproduced below, showing
`
`a negative electrode 12 stacked atop a positive electrode 14, with an insulating separator
`
`16 between them and an electrolyte 18 surrounding them.
`
`- 15 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1028 (Ryou) at FIG. 1.
`
`25. Another configuration that can be included within button cells are spiral
`
`wound electrode assemblies. Commonly called a “jelly roll” configuration, these spiral
`
`assemblies allow for significantly greater surface area of electrode layers, resulting in high
`
`output rates than in the alternatively stacked arrays. Ex. 1009 (Linden) at 91.
`
`26.
`
`In either arrangement, the cell housing generally also acts as the terminal, with
`
`the positive electrode attached in some way to the positive battery terminal, and the
`
`negative electrode is attached to the negative terminal. For example, in the button cell
`
`reproduced below, a lower conductive can 30 is attached to the cathode 24, forming a
`
`positive battery terminal, and the anode 22, contacts the conductive lid 24 to form the
`
`negative battery terminal. Ex. 1019 (Tuttle) at 1:20-24.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1019 (Tuttle) at FIG. 2.
`
`A.
`
`Spiral Wound Electrode Assemblies
`
`27. Generally, “spiral wound” electrode assemblies are created by preparing the
`
`electrode layers (comprising an anode and a cathode material) “as thin strips and then
`
`rolled, with a separator in between.” Ex. 1009 (Linden) at 91. Such an assembly can be
`
`created by: winding the stacked layers around a central winding column or mandrel, which
`
`is then removed or winding the layers around a central column, that is not removed.
`
`28. Once wound, the assembly can be secured from unwinding in several different
`
`ways. For example, the layers can be loosely stacked on top of each other, wound into a
`
`spiral shape, and then secured with an outer piece of adhesive or adhesive backed tape,
`
`which holds the outermost layer in place and provides a radial pressure to the other layers,
`
`preventing the entire assembly from unravelling. This outer adhesive can be in the form of
`
`a single piece that covers only a portion of the outer surface of the assembly (for example,
`
`a small strip of tape attached to a portion of the outer layer) or it could be a ring which
`
`encompasses the entire outer surface and puts pressure on the entire assembly.
`
`29. One well known method of assembling a spiral wound electrode assembly
`
`involves adhering or laminating the layers before being wound, which ensures that the final
`
`assembly does not unravel. This can take the form of an adhesive material that is provided
`
`between the layers of the assembly and using a lamination process.
`
`- 17 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 18
`
`

`

`
`
`30. Lamination can occur by a number of known methods. For example, the
`
`prepared electrode and separator layers, can be stacked atop one another, with the separator
`
`interposed between the electrode layers, as the electrode layers cannot be in direct contact
`
`with one another for the battery to function. Once assembled, the layered stack can be
`
`heated and pressed in order to achieve lamination between the layers. See, e.g., Ex. 1017
`
`(Schmutz) at 4:28-34 (“Preshaped or sized assemblies may be simply pressed for a short
`
`while between metal plates weighted at about 3 x 104 to 5 x 104 Pa in an oven at a
`
`temperature of 120o to 160o C”). Once this laminated stack is assembled, it can be wound,
`
`typically around a central winding mandrel. See, e.g. Ex. 1011 (Oogami) at 3:21-30 (“the
`
`laminated produce is rolled up around the spindle 3 to produce the rolled, laminated battery
`
`element composed of separators 23 and positive and negative electrode materials 21 and
`
`22 electrically insulation from each other through the separators”).
`
`Ex. 1011 (Oogami) at FIG. 4.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 19
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Cell Housing
`
`31. Once created, the electrode assembly must be contained within a housing,
`
`usually composed of two housing parts, in order to become operable. See Ex. 1009 (Linden)
`
`at 310-12. The “bottom” portion is sometimes referred to as a cup, while the “top” portion
`
`may just be referred to as the top. Generally speaking, the terms top and bottom can be
`
`used interchangeably. In button (and other cylindrical) cell batteries, these housing half-
`
`parts act not only as a casing, but also as the battery terminals. See e.g. Ex. 1009 (Linden)
`
`at 809. Which terminal (positive or negative) each half-part corresponds with depends on
`
`the orientation and contact of the electrode assembly within the housing. Once assembled,
`
`it is important to seal the cell so that air cannot enter, and any electrolyte or other materials
`
`contained within cannot leak out.
`
`32. Regardless of the method used to seal the cell housing, the two housing half-
`
`parts cannot contact each other directly, as this would cause a short circuit since the half-
`
`parts are also the battery terminals. In order to prevent this, methods of sealing must
`
`provide for a gasket or other insulator located between the overlapping edges of the housing
`
`half-parts. For example, as shown in the below figures, this insulator can be found in button
`
`cells that are closed without being beaded over, U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0233212 to
`
`Kaun (Ex. 1029), as well as button cells that have been closed by being beaded over, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,566,515 to Suzuki (Ex. 1013).
`
`- 19 -
`
`Eve Energy Co., Ltd v. Varta Microbattery Gmbh
`
`Eve Ex. 1002, p. 20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`33. One well known method involves beading the edge of one half-part (usually
`
`the “bottom” part) over the edge of the other half-part (th