UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`The NOCO Company, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Pilot, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`Case No. – Not Yet Assigned
`U.S. Patent No. 11,235,673
`__________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JONATHAN R. WOOD
`
`-i-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Professional Background ................................................................................. 2
`I.
`Relevant Legal Standards ................................................................................ 8
`II.
`III. Technology Background ................................................................................ 12
`IV. THE ’673 PATENT ....................................................................................... 17
`A. Overview of the ’673 Patent ................................................................ 17
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’673 Patent ............................................... 22
`Level of Skill in the Art ................................................................................. 24
`V.
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 24
`VII.
`the challenged claims are unpatentable ......................................................... 24
`A. Overview of the Prior Art .................................................................... 24
`Krieger ...................................................................................... 24
`i.
`Richardson ................................................................................ 28
`ii.
`Baxter ........................................................................................ 35
`iii.
`Tracey ........................................................................................ 36
`iv.
`Lai ............................................................................................. 38
`v.
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability ................................................. 40
`B.
`C. Ground 1: Krieger Renders Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 12-14, and 18-22
`Obvious ............................................................................................... 41
`D. Ground 2: Krieger in view of Baxter Renders Claim 23 Obvious .... 62
`Ground 3: Krieger in view of Tracey Renders Claims 16 and 17
`E.
`Obvious ............................................................................................... 65
`Ground 4: Richardson Renders Claims 1-10, 12-15, 18-22, and 24
`Obvious ............................................................................................... 67
`G. Ground 5 Richardson in view of Lai renders claim 11 obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................... 93
`H. Ground 6: Richardson in view of Tracey renders claims 16 and 17
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................... 96
`Ground 7: Richardson in view of Krieger renders claims 13, 14, and
`18-22 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................. 97
`Claims 18-22 ....................................................................................... 97
`Claims 13 and 14 ................................................................................. 99
`Ground 8. Richardson in view of Krieger and Baxter renders claim
`23 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ....................................................101
`VIII. Conclusion ...................................................................................................101
`
`
`i.
`ii.
`J.
`
`F.
`
`I.
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of The NOCO Company,
`
`Inc. (“NOCO” or “Petitioner”) in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 11,235,673 (“the ’673 Patent”).
`
`2. My company Altor Limited LC is being compensated for my work in
`
`this matter at the standard hourly rate for my consulting services. In no way does
`
`my compensation in this matter depend on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I considered all materials cited in the
`
`body of this Declaration, which includes but is not limited to the following:
`
`a.
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`h.
`
`the ’673 Patent (Ex. 1001) and its file history (Ex. 1002);
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of the U.S. Patent No. 11,235,673
`(“Petition”);
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2013/0154543 to Richardson, et al.
`(“Richardson”) (Ex. 1004);
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0130298 to Krieger, et al.
`(“Krieger”) (Ex. 1005);
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0173182 to Baxter, et al.
`(“Baxter”) (Ex. 1006);
`International (PCT) Application Publication No. WO 2012/080996A1
`to Tracey, et al. (“Tracey”);
`U.S. Patent No. 8,232,772 to Lai, et al. (“Lai”); and
`Any other documents referred to in this Declaration.
`
`-1-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`I.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`4.
`A detailed description of my professional qualifications, including a
`
`listing of my specialties, expertise, and professional activities, is contained in my
`
`curriculum vitae, a copy of which is included at Exhibit 1009.
`
`5.
`
`I have 54 years of experience in power electronics and analog circuits,
`
`including battery systems. I hold a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1973), an M.E. in Electrical Engineering
`
`from the University of Auckland (1969), and a B.E. in Electrical Engineering from
`
`the University of Auckland (1968).
`
`6.
`
`I have extensive expertise in power electronics, power conversion,
`
`power supplies, power supply design, power management, analog circuits, analog
`
`electronics, DC-DC converter design, battery circuits, and electrical engineering,
`
`among other areas. Furthermore, I have 35 years of experience running my own
`
`business in power electronics, an experience which has allowed me to obtain an
`
`intimate knowledge of the skills of practicing engineers.
`
`7. More specifically, I have been the President of Altor Limited LC since
`
`October 2004, and in that role I have provided my expertise in analog and power
`
`electronics to key clients such as Dell, Inc.; Qualcomm Inc.; EMO Labs; ITT Night
`
`Vision; Watts Regulator Company; International Rectifier Corporation; Johnson
`
`-2-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Outdoors Marine Electronics; MagneMotion, Inc.; ON Semiconductor; Rackspace
`
`Hosting; and Argo-Tech Corporation, among others.
`
`8.
`
`Prior to that, from 1999 to 2004, I was the Vice President of
`
`Engineering at Acumentrics Corporation in Westwood, Massachusetts, where I
`
`oversaw the development of military-grade UPS systems, large flywheel-based
`
`UPS systems, and fuel cell systems.
`
`9.
`
`From 1986 to 1999, I was the President of Altor, Inc., which I
`
`founded. The company provided design, prototyping, and manufacturing services
`
`to a wide variety of companies such as AT&T Corporation, AirNet
`
`Communications Corporation, Bose Corporation, Compaq Computer Corporation,
`
`EMC Corporation, GTE Government Systems, International Power Devices,
`
`Lockheed Sanders Corporation, Lucent Technologies, Inc., Raytheon Company,
`
`Wang Laboratories, and others. In addition, I provided consulting services
`
`personally to a number of hardware manufacturers with regard to design issues
`
`including hardware failures, and reliability issues. An expanded list of customers
`
`is shown in my Curriculum Vitae.
`
`10. While at Altor, Inc., I led the company in designing and developing a
`
`wide variety of custom power supplies according to the requirements of our
`
`customers, as illustrated in an excerpt of our 1998 company brochure below.
`
`-3-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`11. Under my guidance, Altor, Inc. developed numerous power supplies
`
`for diverse applications, including instrumentation power supplies, medical power
`
`supplies, redundant power supplies, programmable linear power supplies, specialty
`
`power supplies, computer power supplies, rugged-environment power supplies,
`
`dual-redundant power supplies, multiple-redundant power supplies, industrial
`
`power supplies, replacement power supplies, network power supplies, and battery
`
`backup systems. This can be seen in excerpts of the same company brochure
`
`below.
`
`Figure 1. Excerpt from brochure for Altor, Inc.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`Figure 2. Excerpt from brochure for Altor, Inc.
`
`
`
`Figure 3. Excerpt from brochure for Altor, Inc.
`
`
`-5-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`Figure 4. Excerpt from brochure for Altor, Inc.
`
`
`
`Figure 5. Excerpt from brochure for Altor, Inc.
`
`-6-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`12. The engineers under my leadership provided custom-designed and
`
`tailored power supplies for different applications in diverse industries. In order to
`
`avoid engineering failures at my own expense, I had to know the technical abilities
`
`of these employees.
`
`13. Before my time at Altor, Inc., I worked from 1981-1986 as a design
`
`and research engineer at Data General Corporation with a primary focus on power
`
`supplies, including battery backup systems. As a Senior Engineer at Data General
`
`Corporation, I designed a reliable power supply for the company’s MV/4000
`
`computer, which was a major revenue-producing product for the company. I
`
`carried out modeling, analysis, and design implementation of democratic load-
`
`sharing schemes for modular power supplies, and I categorized, modeled, and
`
`compared options for power supply front ends for fault-tolerant systems.
`
`14. While at Data General, I also identified, modeled, and explained the
`
`occurrence of chaotic system behavior in switching power supplies. In addition, I
`
`identified, modeled, and implemented a fast-transient-response feedback loop
`
`design method. I presented technical papers at national power conversion
`
`conferences (Powercon and APEC) relating to these topics in 1982, 1983, 1984,
`
`and 1989.
`
`-7-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`15.
`
`I worked from 1977-1981 as the Systems Group Leader at Mobil
`
`Tyco Solar Energy Corporation, with a primary focus on solar photovoltaic power
`
`supplies, including battery charge control systems.
`
`16.
`
`I have given lectures on feedback systems and power electronics at
`
`major universities (including Harvard University, M.I.T., Duke University, and
`
`Worcester Polytechnic Institute). I have lectured on feedback systems at the IEEE
`
`Applied Power Electronics Conference (APEC), for which I was a founding
`
`committee member in 1986. I hold sixteen patents in the field of electronic power
`
`conversion, and I have served as an expert witness in over a dozen cases.
`
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`17.
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether claims 1-24
`
`(“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’673 Patent are anticipated by the prior art or
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`at the time of the alleged invention, in view of the prior art.
`
`18.
`
`I am an engineer and scientist by education and profession. The
`
`opinions expressed by me in this Declaration involve the application of my
`
`engineering knowledge and experience to the evaluation of certain prior art with
`
`respect to the ’673 Patent. I am neither an attorney nor a patent agent. Therefore, I
`
`have requested the attorneys from Jones Day, who represent NOCO, to provide me
`
`with guidance as to the applicable patent law in this matter. The paragraphs below
`
`-8-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`express my understanding of how I must apply current legal principles related to
`
`patentability.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that in determining whether a patent claim is anticipated
`
`or obvious in view of the prior art in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) gives claims their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, or the meaning that the term would have to a POSITA at the time of the
`
`invention in view of the intrinsic record. I understand that the claim language,
`
`specification, and prosecution history are relevant to determine the meaning of a
`
`claim term. I understand that the prosecution history of a patent provides the
`
`record of the examination of a patent application before the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (PTO). The prosecution history provides evidence of how the
`
`patent examiner and the inventors understood the patent application and the claims
`
`and can therefore be instructive on how to interpret the claims. I understand that
`
`extrinsic evidence may also be used to interpret the meaning of a claim term.
`
`Extrinsic evidence includes dictionaries, treatises, expert testimony, and prior art.
`
`However, I understand that one should first look to the intrinsic evidence in
`
`construing claims.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that there are at least two circumstances wherein the
`
`words in a patent claim may differ from and not be given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. One circumstance is when the applicants act as their own lexicographer
`
`-9-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`by clearly setting forth a definition of a claim term that may differ from the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. Another circumstance is when
`
`the applicant includes or provides an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim
`
`scope. I understand that an applicant may act as their own lexicographer, or
`
`disclaim or disavow claim scope, in either the specification or the prosecution
`
`history of the patent. I understand also that the applicant may act as a
`
`lexicographer, or disclaim or disavow claim scope, by making amendments to the
`
`claims during prosecution, or by making assertions to the PTO about the
`
`differences between the claimed inventions and the prior art.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if
`
`each and every element and limitation of the claim is found either expressly or
`
`inherently in a single prior art reference.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I also understand that an
`
`obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and content of the prior art, the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`23.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, I understand that
`
`a reference is considered appropriate prior art if it falls within the field of the
`
`-10-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is prior art if it is reasonably pertinent
`
`to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. A reference is
`
`reasonably pertinent if it logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s
`
`attention in considering his problem. If a reference relates to the same problem as
`
`the claimed invention, that supports use of the reference as prior art in an
`
`obviousness analysis.
`
`24. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, I understand that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires that the claimed invention be
`
`considered as a whole. I also understand that a finding of obviousness requires
`
`more than merely demonstrating that each claim element was known in the prior
`
`art. Obviousness requires showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art to achieve the
`
`claimed invention and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`doing so.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the Supreme Court has recognized several rationales
`
`for combining references or modifying a reference to show the obviousness of
`
`claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include: combining prior art
`
`elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; a
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions;
`
`-11-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and
`
`some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`III. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`26. Most people know that physical contact with electric wires must be
`
`avoided when the voltage on those wires is sufficiently high. Worldwide safety
`
`agencies have set 60 volts DC as the voltage level below which human contact is
`
`considered safe. Thus, human contact with the 120 volts present in U.S. power
`
`outlets must be avoided.
`
`27.
`
`In addition to the danger presented by high voltage, a source of
`
`electric current may also be hazardous, even at a voltage low enough to be
`
`considered non-hazardous. Worldwide safety agencies have set levels of energy
`
`and power below which human contact is considered safe, even when the voltage
`
`is well below 60 volts. A 12-volt automobile battery exceeds these levels by a
`
`wide margin. Placing a metal object such as a wrench directly across the terminals
`
`of a vehicle battery will produce sparks and/or a melted wrench and/or a damaged
`
`battery and/or a fire if flammable materials are nearby. To emphasize the danger
`
`-12-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`of energy hazards, Safety Standard UL 478 issued by Underwriters Laboratories,
`
`Inc. stated the following:
`
`25.1. The capability for damage or injury to persons (other
`than by electric shock) from available electrical energy is
`considered to exist at any live part, if, between the live part
`and an adjacent dead metal part or live part of different
`polarity, a potential of 2 volts or more exists with either
`(1) an available continuous power level of 240 VA or
`more, or (2) a reactive energy level of 20 joules or more.
`For example, a tool or other metal short-circuiting a
`component could cause a burn or a fire if sufficient energy
`is available at the component to vaporize, melt, or more
`than warm the metal.
`In my own experience from youth, I well remember my dad
`
`28.
`
`impressing upon me the dire importance of preventing metal objects from
`
`connecting the two terminals of a vehicle battery. My dad owned an automobile
`
`dealership, and on one occasion when changing a vehicle battery, he momentarily
`
`allowed the wrench removing one terminal to touch the metal strap of his
`
`wristwatch, which happened to be in contact with the other terminal. He received
`
`a burn from the watch strap, and the resulting painful wound did not heal for many
`
`months.
`
`29. Lead-acid batteries have been used in automobiles for over a hundred
`
`years, and throughout that time have exhibited a frustrating tendency to lose charge
`
`at inconvenient times, resulting in a “dead” battery which is incapable of starting a
`
`vehicle. Throughout the twentieth century, starting a vehicle having a “dead”
`
`-13-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`battery has been accomplished with a pair of so-called jumper cables made of
`
`heavy-gauge wire with alligator clamps at each end. One cable is colored red for
`
`attachment to the positive terminals, and the other cable is colored black for
`
`attachment to the negative terminals. In use, a direct electrical connection is made
`
`between the batteries of the two vehicles. When the engine of the assisted vehicle
`
`has started, the cables are disconnected.
`
`Figure 6. Conventional jumper cables.
`
`
`
`30. When accomplished correctly, the method of jumper cables functions
`
`well enough, that is, at least well enough to start the engine of the vehicle with the
`
`dead battery. The method is, however, fraught with some danger. This danger
`
`results from the fact that a vehicle battery is an electrical energy hazard. Short
`
`circuits resulting from accidental misconnection of the jumper cables can produce
`
`the unwanted results listed above quickly and unexpectedly, including sparks
`
`and/or melted cables and/or damaged batteries and/or fire. In most vehicles, the
`
`-14-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`negative battery terminal is directly connected to the engine or chassis, and a short
`
`circuit will result if the red cable clamp (already attached to the positive battery
`
`terminal) touches the engine or chassis. Another danger exists via an accidental
`
`direct connection made when red and black cable clamps come into contact with
`
`each other, their other ends being attached to an intact battery. Yet another
`
`dangerous potential misconnection exists via an accidental reverse-polarity
`
`connection between vehicles, in which the positive cable from the intact battery is
`
`connected to the negative terminal of the assisted vehicle, and vice versa. Such
`
`unintended and dangerous misconnections are easily made.
`
`31. During the last twenty years or so, lithium-ion batteries have become
`
`readily available. Such batteries provide a low-impedance source of electrical
`
`energy in a compact lightweight package, and manufacturers have produced a
`
`variety of handheld devices capable of jump-starting an automobile without the
`
`need for connection to another vehicle or to an external battery.
`
`-15-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Figure 7. NOCO portable jump starter.
`
`
`
`32. While lithium-ion batteries provide certain advantages for jump
`
`starting a vehicle compared with hooking up the discharged battery to another
`
`vehicle’s lead-acid battery, lithium-ion batteries present certain heightened risks.
`
`Chief among these is thermal runaway failure via an exothermic reaction, whereby
`
`if a lithium-ion battery is accidentally short-circuited or allowed to overheat, a
`
`situation can arise wherein cells of the lithium-ion battery begin to fail, releasing
`
`heat. These temperatures cause other cells to fail, and these failures cascade until
`
`the battery itself can erupt in flame. The potential for thermal runaway failure is
`
`one reason why, for example, the United States Federal Aviation Administration
`
`has banned devices containing lithium-ion batteries, such as laptop computers and
`
`hoverboards, from being loaded into cargo compartments of aircraft. Airline crews
`
`are taught that the best way to deal with a laptop computer that has erupted in
`
`-16-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`flame is to pour water on the device. (Even hot coffee will do, but ice cubes will
`
`not.)
`
`33. Designers of jump-starters containing lithium-ion batteries need to
`
`ensure that the lithium-ion batteries can never be overcharged, because
`
`overcharging produces heating, leading to possible thermal runaway. In addition
`
`to protective charging circuitry (usually housed within the jump-starting device),
`
`reverse-flow protection must be included to ensure that once a vehicle engine has
`
`been started, current will not flow from the vehicle battery back into the lithium-
`
`ion battery within the jump-starter. Many jump-starters have 12-volt lithium-ion
`
`batteries which must be protected from vehicle battery voltages reaching 15 or 16
`
`volts, once the vehicle engine is running. Three common methods to implement
`
`reverse-flow protection are: 1) Having the control circuitry within the jump-starter
`
`open the connecting switch whenever a reverse-flow situation may occur, 2)
`
`Incorporating blocking diodes in series with the switching relay of a jump-starter
`
`(if a relay is used as the power switch), and 3) Placing series-connected MOSFET
`
`switching transistors in opposite directions to inhibit back-flow through the body
`
`diodes of the MOSFET transistors (if such transistors are used for the power
`
`switch).
`
`IV. THE ’673 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’673 Patent
`
`-17-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`34.
`
`In summary, the ’673 Patent discloses a jump starter that includes:
`
`• a power supply battery (referred to in the ’673 Patent as a “direct current
`power supply”),
`• a power switch made up of six MOSFETs,
`• a boost device providing drive voltage to the gates of the six MOSFETs,
`• an 8-pin microcontroller U2,
`• a 3-terminal voltage regulator U1 providing supply voltage for the
`microcontroller U2, and
`• two resistive dividers.
`35. Contrary to standard industry terminology, the ’673 Patent refers to
`
`the voltage regulator U1 as a “DC to DC module.”
`
`36. The ’673 Patent relates to an automobile charging device that prevents
`
`operation when the charging electrodes are improperly connected to the automobile
`
`battery, such as with reverse polarity. See Ex. 1001 at 1:23-36; 44-47. An example
`
`of the automobile charging device is illustrated in Figure 1 of the ’673 Patent, set
`
`forth below.
`
`-18-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Ex. 1001 Figure 1
`
`
`
`37. As shown in Fig. 1, the automobile charging device described in the
`
`’673 Patent includes a direct current power supply 7 (also referred to as a battery)
`
`that is used to supply charging current to a load module 6, which “comprises the
`
`automobile storage battery and the automobile engine.” See id. at 3:17-37; Fig. 1.
`
`The automobile charging device is controlled by a microcontroller 2, which collects
`
`data from a battery voltage detection module 3 and a load detection module 5 in
`
`order to control the supply of power to the load module 6 through an automobile
`
`start control module 4. See id. at 4:16-24; Fig. 1. Specifically, “[t]he battery voltage
`
`detection module [3] conducts the measurement of the battery [7] voltage, and the
`
`automobile start control module [4] conducts the power supply or the power outage
`
`for the load module [6] through the microcontroller [2], wherein the load detection
`
`module [5] detects whether the load module [6] is correctly connected.” Id. at 4:18-
`
`24. The automobile charging device further includes a DC to DC module 1
`
`-19-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`(commonly known as a 3-terminal voltage regulator, as noted above) that provides
`
`a “stable voltage” from the direct current power supply 7 to the microcontroller 2.
`
`See id. at 3:17-37; 4:16-18; Fig. 1.
`
`38. The ’673 Patent explains that the microcontroller 2 “determines
`
`whether the automobile storage battery is connected with the automobile engine
`
`through the load detection module [5]” and that “the automobile start control model
`
`[sic] is automatically activated and the battery [7] starts to supply power to the load
`
`module [6] when the load is correctly connected.” Id. at 4:25-30. Further, “the
`
`automobile start control module [4] is automatically deactivated and the battery [7]
`
`stops supplying power to the load module [6] when assuming that the load is not
`
`connected or the positive and negative polarities are reversely connected.” Id. at
`
`4:28-32. The microcontroller 2 also causes the automobile charging device to enter
`
`a “standby mode” and “closes all outputs when the battery [7] voltage is lower than
`
`9V,” and resumes normal operations “when the battery [7] voltage is larger than
`
`10V.” Id. at 4:34-37.
`
`39. Figure 2 from the ’673 Patent provides more detail for the items
`
`disclosed in Figure 1:
`
`-20-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Ex. 1001 Figure 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 Figure 2 annotated
`
`
`
`40. The first of the two resistive dividers depicted in Figure 2, comprising
`
`resistors R2 and R13, has its output connected to Pin 6 of microcontroller U2 and its
`
`input connected to the power supply battery voltage. The second of the two resistive
`
`-21-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`dividers depicted in Figure 2, comprising resistors R9 and R10, also has its output
`
`connected to Pin 6 of microcontroller U2, and has its input connected to the vehicle
`
`battery voltage. Thus, Pin 6 of microcontroller U2 receives a linear combination of
`
`the voltages of the power supply battery and the vehicle battery. No other pin of
`
`microcontroller U2 receives a signal indicating status of the vehicle battery.
`
`B.
`41.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’673 Patent
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the ’673 Patent. Following
`
`is a brief summary.
`
`42. U.S. Patent Application No. 17/236,279 (“the ’279 Application) was
`
`filed on April 21, 2021 and issued as the ’673 Patent on February 1, 2022. See Ex.
`
`1001. The ’673 Patent claims priority through a series of continuations to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,525,297, filed on December 12, 2014, which claims the benefit of
`
`priority to Chinese Application No. 201420212173.5, filed on April 28, 2014. See
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:5-19; see also Ex. 1002 at 213-214.
`
`43. The ’279 Application was filed with a Preliminary Amendment that
`
`cancelled claims 1-6, and added claims 7-30 that ultimately issued as claims 1-24 of
`
`the ’673 Patent. See Ex. 1002 at 187-192. Prior to examination, the Patent Owner
`
`filed an information disclosure statement with the Patent Office listing over 200
`
`patent and non-patent references, with no explanation of the relevance of any
`
`reference to the claims of the ’260 Application. See id. at 129-145. A first Office
`
`-22-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Action was then issued on July 30, 2021, objecting to antecedent basis issues in the
`
`abstract and claims and rejecting claims 7-30 of the ’260 Application only for non-
`
`statutory (obviousness-type) double patenting over U.S. Patent No. 10,328,806. See
`
`id. at 88-93. The Office Action did not apply or address any of the over 200
`
`references cited in the information disclosure statement. See id.
`
`44. The Patent Owner filed a response to the first Office Action and a
`
`terminal disclaimer of U.S. Patent No. 10,328,806 on August 10, 2021. Id. at 55-65.
`
`In response to the claim objections, the Patent Owner amended claim 7, as follows.
`
`Id.
`
`45. A Notice of Allowance was then issued by the Patent Office on
`
`December 24, 2021. Id. at 24-31.
`
`
`
`-23-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`V. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`46.
`In my opinion, a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at
`
`the time of the ’673 Patent would have been a person having at least a Bachelor’s
`
`Degree in a relevant engineering discipline such as electrical engineering and at
`
`least two years of relevant experience in the design and/or development of
`
`automotive electrical systems, or a Masters or more advanced degree in a relevant
`
`engineering discipline such as electrical engineering.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`47.
`I understand that the claims of the ’673 Patent should be given their
`
`plain meaning, which is the meaning understood by a POSITA at the time of the
`
`invention in view of the patent and file history. This is the meaning that I have
`
`applied to the claims in my analysis.
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Overview of the Prior Art
`i.
`Krieger
`48. Krieger was filed on December 10, 2002 and was published on July 8,
`
`2004. I understand that Krieger is prior art to the ’673 Patent.
`
`49.
`
`In summary, Krieger discloses a jump starter that includes:
`
`• a built-in battery 2,
`• a power switch 12 made up of four MOSFETs,
`
`-24-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`• a level translator 68 providing drive voltage to the gates of the four
`MOSFETs,
`• a 16-pin microcontroller 60,
`• a 3-terminal voltage regulator 70 providing supply voltage for the
`microcontroller 60, and
`• a feedback circuit or other means including a resistive divider to monitor the
`voltage and/or current of the vehicle battery [0044].
`50. Krieger describes “a booster device used for boosting a depleted
`
`battery and in particular to microprocessor control of the booster apparatus and a
`
`polarity protection circuit.” Ex. 1005 ¶ [0002]. “The polarity protection circuit is
`
`electrically connected to the battery to be charged (depleted battery) and to a
`
`boosting battery or other power source.” Id. at ¶ [0010]. “The polarity protection
`
`circuit prevents current flow between the batteries unless proper polarity is
`
`achieved.” Id. An example of a microprocessor-controlled jump starter system with
`
`polarity protection is illustrated in Fig. 5 of Krieger, set forth below. Id. at ¶ [0043].
`
`
`
`-25-
`
`NOCO Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005, Fig. 5.
`
`51. The microprocessor 60 shown in Fig. 5 of Krieger “can be
`
`programmed to perform essentially all of the control functions needed for operation
`
`of the jump starter.” Id. at ¶ [0043]. “By way of a feedback circuit or other means,
`
`the microprocessor 60 can monitor the voltage and/or current being supplied to the
`
`depleted bat