Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 90
`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 90
`
`EXHIBIT J
`EXHIBIT J
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 90
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`———————
`
`IPR2022-01136
`U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 3 of 90
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. 6
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 7
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 8
`
`III. NOTE ............................................................................................................... 8
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’360 PATENT ............................................................. 8
`
`V.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY .........................................................................12
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................12
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................13
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF .................................................................................15
`
`IX.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ....16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................. 16
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ...................................................... 16
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1 and 15 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Tobergte in view of Cole. ........................................................... 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Summary of Tobergte .............................................................. 17
`
`Summary of Cole ..................................................................... 22
`
`Reasons to Combine Tobergte and Cole .................................. 25
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 31
`
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 47
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 4 of 90
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`D. Ground 2: Claims 2 and 3 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Tobergte in view of Cole and further in view of Schuermann. ......... 50
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Summary of Schuermann ......................................................... 50
`
`Reasons to Combine Tobergte and Cole with
`Schuermann .............................................................................. 52
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 56
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 58
`
`E.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 8-9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Tobergte in view of Cole and in further view of O’Toole. ................ 59
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Summary of O’Toole ............................................................... 59
`
`Reasons to Combine Tobergte and Cole with O’Toole ........... 60
`
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 63
`
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 66
`
`F.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 10 and 11 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Tobergte, Cole, O’Toole, and Plonsky ...................................... 68
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Summary of Plonsky ................................................................ 68
`
`Reasons to Combine Plonsky with Tobergte, Cole, and
`O’Toole .................................................................................... 68
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 70
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 72
`
`X. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE .................73
`
`A. Discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors is not appropriate ........ 73
`
`1.
`
`No evidence regarding a stay ................................................... 74
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 5 of 90
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Parallel proceeding trial date ................................................... 74
`
`Investment in the parallel proceeding ...................................... 75
`
`Overlapping issues with the parallel proceeding ..................... 76
`
`Petitioner is a defendant ........................................................... 76
`
`Other circumstances ................................................................. 76
`
`The Fintiv Framework Should Be Overturned................................... 77
`
`Discretionary denial under General Plastic is not appropriate .......... 77
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Apple is a different, unrelated petitioner. ................................ 78
`
`Factor 2 is of little probative value. ......................................... 79
`
`No previous patent owner’s preliminary response. ................. 80
`
`Fourth and fifth factors are inapplicable. ................................. 80
`
`The finite resources of the Board and the requirement
`under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11). .................................................. 80
`
`D. Discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is not appropriate .... 81
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Becton, Dickinson Factor (c) .................................................... 82
`
`Becton, Dickinson Factors (e) and (f). ..................................... 83
`
`Conclusion ............................................................................... 84
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................85
`
`XII. MANDATORY NOTICES ...........................................................................86
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ......................................................................... 86
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................... 86
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 6 of 90
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ........................ 86
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ......................................................................88
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................89
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 7 of 90
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360
`
`Declaration of Dr. Joshua Phinney under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Joshua Phinney
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,519,386 to Tobergte (“Tobergte”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,144,299 to Cole (“Cole”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,287,112 to Schuermann (“Schuermann”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,384,648 to O’Toole (“O’Toole”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,049,857 to Plonsky (“Plonsky”)
`
`JP2001243431 to Naruse et al. (“Naruse”) – Certified English
`Translation
`
`Complaint, Aire Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc. 6-21-cv-01101
`(W.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2021)
`
`Infringement Contentions, Aire Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc. 6-21-
`cv-01101 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2021)
`
`Scheduling Order, Aire Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc. 6-21-cv-
`01101 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2021)
`Standing Order Governing Proceedings (OGP) 4.1
`
`Complaint, Aire Technology Ltd v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`6:21-cv-00955 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 15, 2021)
`
`JP2001243431 to Naruse et al. (Original)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1001
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Ex.1003
`Ex.1004
`
`Ex.1005
`Ex.1006
`
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`Ex.1009
`
`Ex.1010
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Ex.1012
`
`Ex.1013
`
`Ex.1014
`
`Ex.1015
`
`Ex.1016
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 8 of 90
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360 (the “’360 patent,” Ex.1001) is generally directed
`
`to contactless data communications between electronic devices (e.g., RFID
`
`transponders, chip cards, data reading devices). According to the background of
`
`the ’360 patent, “automatically setting up a data connection” between such devices
`
`was already well known, as was “switch[ing] on” a device in response to detecting
`
`the presence of another device. Ex.1001, 1:11-2:2. The Examiner allowed the ’360
`
`patent because the Applicants amended the claims to specifically recite that this
`
`switching on is accomplished “by connecting the communication element to an
`
`energy source.” Ex.1002, 54-57, 40-41. This alleged improvement, however, was
`
`already known in the art as of the earliest alleged priority date of the ’360 patent.
`
`For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,519,386 to Tobergte teaches switching on a
`
`communication element of an interrogation device by connecting the
`
`communication element to an energy source when a portable data carrier is
`
`detected.
`
`Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311, 314(a), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100,
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that the Board review and cancel as
`
`unpatentable under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. §103(a) claims 1-3, 8-11, and 15
`
`(hereinafter, the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’360 patent.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 9 of 90
`
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’360 patent is eligible for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the patent claims. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(a).
`
`III. NOTE
`Petitioner cites to exhibits’ original page numbers. Emphasis in quoted
`
`material has been added. Claim terms are presented in italics.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’360 PATENT
`
`The ’360 patent generally relates to short-range, wireless communications,
`
`and in particular, “automatically setting up a data connection in intelligent devices”
`
`when the devices “approach” each other. Ex.1001, 1:8-12. Fig. 1 illustrates
`
`example intelligent devices 10, 20, 30 that may take the “form of a portable
`
`computer 11 or a mobile telephone 21 or be realized in an RFID transponder with a
`
`chip 31, formed e.g. in a contactless chip card 30.” Ex.1001, 3:22-37, Fig. 1. Each
`
`device 10, 20, 30 includes a coil for contactless communication. Ex.1001, 3:22-25.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 10 of 90
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`Intelligent devices with
`coils 13, 23, 33 for
`contactless communication
`Ex.1001, Fig. 1 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶25
`
`
`
`The ’360 patent explains that first step in setting up such a data connection
`
`between these devices is detection of the “target” device by the “initiator” device.
`
`Ex.1001, 1:21-23. Typically, an initiator device detects a target device by
`
`“cyclically emitting search queries” in a search mode that are answered by the
`
`target. Ex.1001, 1:21-30. The ’360 patent notes, however, that continually emitting
`
`search queries causes “a relatively high constant power consumption” in the
`
`initiator device. Ex.1001, 1:30-36.
`
`In light of this “undesirable effect,” the ’360 patent proposes that the
`
`initiator only enter the search mode and transmit search signals when the target is
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 11 of 90
`
`
`“possibly located” within range of the initiator. Ex.1001, 1:38-39, 2:10-21. To
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`determine if a target device is possibly located within range, the initiator relies on
`
`the known technique of detecting a “property change”—such as a change in
`
`frequency—of its oscillating circuit. Ex.1001, 1:56-63, 2:11-16. As shown in this
`
`petition, however, both the stated problem and alleged solution of the ’360 patent
`
`were already described in the prior art.
`
`In more detail, Fig. 2 (annotated below) illustrates a “simplified equivalent
`
`circuit diagram” of the devices 10, 20, 30 in Fig. 1. The device includes
`
`transmission oscillator 50 formed by coil 13 and capacitor 481. Ex.1001, 5:9-11.
`
`The communication element 12 is a device, that when switched on, emits search
`
`signals “to ascertain the presence of another device . . . within the response range
`
`of the coil 13.” Ex.1001, 3:55-57. This communication element is connected to coil
`
`13 of the transmission oscillator and indirectly to a data processing component 11
`
`via switch 42 of switching apparatus 15.
`
`
`1 The described “transmission oscillator” is merely another name for what is
`
`known in the art as a resonant circuit. Ex.1003, ¶29; see also Ex.1005, 3:18-20, 32-
`
`33, Fig. 1.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 12 of 90
`
`
`
`switch 42 for physically connecting
`communication element 12
`to energy supply 41
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`transmission oscillator 50 (i.e.,
`resonant circuit) includes coil 13
`and capacitor 48
`
`
`
`measuring unit 46 monitors
`property of transmission oscillator 50 to control
`actuation of switch 42 via actuator 43
`Ex.1001, Fig. 2 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶29.
`
`
`
`The measuring unit 46 monitors a property—frequency or impedance—of
`
`the transmission oscillator 50 and sends out a control signal when a change in the
`
`monitored property is detected. Ex.1001, 6:53-65. The control signal actuates
`
`switch 42 to “switch[] on” the communication element 12 by physically connecting
`
`the communication element to an energy source 41. Ex.1001, 7:67-8:6, cl. 1, 4:42-
`
`50.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 13 of 90
`
`
`V.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`The ’360 patent is a national stage application of PCT Application
`
`PCT/EP2004/008537 filed July 29, 2004, which claims priority to German patent
`
`application DE 10334765 filed July 30, 2003. It is unnecessary to determine
`
`whether the ’360 patent is entitled to its earliest alleged priority date because the
`
`prior art relied upon herein pre-dates the earliest alleged priority date.
`
`After a prolonged prosecution, the Applicant finally overcame the cited prior
`
`art by amending the claims to recite that the claimed switching apparatus switches
`
`on the communication element “by connecting the communication element to an
`
`energy source.” Ex.1002, 54-57, 40-41. The Applicant distinguished the amended
`
`claims from the cited art by stating that “Amended claim 1 requires a switch which
`
`physically connects and disconnects the energy source from the communication
`
`element (see also Fig. 2).” Ex.1002, 61. The Examiner issued a Notice of
`
`Allowance and the ’360 patent issued on May 8, 2012. Ex.1002, 40-41, 2.
`
`As illustrated in this petition, the concept of switching on a communication
`
`element by physical connecting it to an energy source was already well known in
`
`the art. Accordingly, the Examiner erred in allowing the ’360 patent.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art (“POSITA”) in July of 2003 (the
`
`earliest alleged priority date) would have been someone knowledgeable and
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 14 of 90
`
`
`familiar with the short-range, wireless communication arts (e.g., RFID, NFC) that
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`are pertinent to the ’360 patent. That person would have a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent
`
`training, and approximately two years of experience working in the electrical
`
`engineering field. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional
`
`education, and vice versa. Ex.1003, ¶19.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In an inter partes review, claims “shall be construed using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b). The Board only construes the claims to the extent necessary to resolve
`
`the underlying controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor
`
`Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner submits that for the purposes
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 15 of 90
`
`
`of this proceeding, the terms of the Challenged Claims should be given their plain
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction.2 Ex.1003, ¶31.
`
`Petitioner notes that for the term “a measuring device” in claim 1, Petitioner
`
`and Patent Owner have proposed the following constructions in District Court:
`
`Patent Owner
`No construction necessary.
`
`Petitioner
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`Function: monitoring a property of the
`transmission oscillator, and outputting
`a control signal when ascertaining a
`change of the monitored property,
`wherein the monitored property of the
`transmission oscillator includes the
`frequency or impedance of the
`transmission oscillator in resonance
`Structure: Indefinite.
`
`For the purpose of this proceeding, Petitioner adopts Patent Owner’s
`
`constructions for the above term. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (requiring the
`
`petition to set forth only “how the challenged claim is to be construed”); see also
`
`
`2 Petitioner does not concede that any term in the Challenged Claims meets the
`
`statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, or that the Challenged Claims recite
`
`patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 16 of 90
`
`
`Google LLC v. AGIS Software Devel., LLC, IPR2018-01083, Paper 10 at 10-11
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`(Jan. 10, 2019) (explaining that the language of § 42.104(b)(3) “does not refer to
`
`belief in the correctness of the construction” and instituting because the “Petition
`
`sets forth with sufficiency [Petitioner’s] assertions as to how the claims are to be
`
`construed in this proceeding”); Hospira, Inc. et al. v. Amgen Inc., IPR2021-00528,
`
`Paper 7 at 7 (Aug. 17, 2021) (“We determine that Petitioner’s willingness to adopt
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed constructions for purposes of this proceeding is sufficient
`
`to satisfy the requirements of § 42.104(b)(3).”); see also ZTE Corp. et al. v. WSOU
`
`Invests., LLC, IPR2021-00698, Paper 10 at 8-10 (Oct. 18, 2021) (declining to
`
`apply § 112 ¶ 6 where a claim term did not include the words “means” and
`
`Petitioner adopted Patent Owner’s plain and ordinary meaning construction for the
`
`purposes of the proceeding). Regardless of the indefiniteness of the term, claim 1 is
`
`still rendered obvious by art cited in this petition.
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board institute a trial for inter partes review and
`
`cancel the Challenged Claims in view of the analysis below.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 17 of 90
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`
`IX.
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-3, 8-11, and 15, which correspond to the
`
`claims asserted in the plaintiff’s infringement contentions in the co-pending
`
`litigation. Ex.1012, 1.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`Grounds
`#1
`#2
`#3
`#4
`
`Claim(s)
`1 and 15
`2 and 3
`8 and 9
`10 and 11
`
`Basis
`§ 103 Tobergte and Cole
`§ 103 Tobergte, Cole, and Schuermann
`§ 103 Tobergte, Cole, and O’Toole
`§ 103 Tobergte, Cole, O’Toole, and Plonsky
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,519,386 to Tobergte (“Tobergte,” Ex.1005) issued on
`
`May 21, 1996. Tobergte is thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,144,299 to Cole (“Cole,” Ex.1006) issued on November 7,
`
`2000. Cole is thus prior art under at least § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,287,112 to Schuermann (“Schuermann,” Ex.1007) issued
`
`on February 15, 1994. Schuermann is thus prior art under at least § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,384,648 to O’Toole et al. (“O’Toole,” Ex.1008) issued on
`
`May 7, 2002. O’Toole is thus prior art under at least § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,049,857 to Plonsky (“Plonsky,” Ex.1009) issued on
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 18 of 90
`
`
`September 17, 1991. Plonsky is thus prior art under at least § 102(b).
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`Petitioner’s analysis also cites additional prior art to demonstrate the
`
`background knowledge of a POSITA and to provide contemporaneous context to
`
`support Petitioner’s assertions regarding what a POSITA would have understood
`
`from the prior art. See Yeda Research v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1041-
`
`1042 (Fed. Cir. 2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); see also K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear
`
`Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 15 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Tobergte in view of Cole.
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Tobergte
`
`Like the ’360 patent, Tobergte relates to short-range, wireless
`
`communications between electronic devices. Ex.1005, 1:6-9, 3:16-18. Tobergte
`
`describes the same problem with these devices identified by the ’360 patent and
`
`proposes the same solution.
`
`Specifically, Tobergte notes that in past data exchange systems, the
`
`interrogator searches for the portable data carrier by “transmit[ting] a high-
`
`frequency electromagnetic field that also transfers information” (i.e., a search
`
`signal). Ex.1005, 1:22-24. Tobergte further states that “[w]hen the data carrier
`
`approaches such an interrogation device, the energy taken up from the high-
`
`frequency electromagnetic field feeds the circuit of the data carrier … [and] [t]he
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 19 of 90
`
`
`data carrier then returns its identification to the interrogation device.” Ex.1005,
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`1:24-33. Tobergte explains that “problems” arise when the interrogation device
`
`“must continually transmit an electromagnetic field” to search for the portable data
`
`carrier, for example, because the interrogator has a limited energy source. Ex.1005,
`
`1:34-42. This problem of high energy usage when searching for data carriers is the
`
`same problem identified by the ’360 patent. See Ex.1001, 1:30-36 (explaining that
`
`continually emitting search queries causes “high constant power consumption” in
`
`the initiator device).
`
`Tobergte also describes the same solution as the ’360 patent. In Tobergte’s
`
`system, “neither the data carrier nor the fixed station is operated continually.”
`
`Ex.1005, 1:58-59. Instead, Tobergte’s fixed station (interrogator) waits until it
`
`“detects” a change in voltage indicative of the portable data carrier being nearby
`
`before “switch[ing] on” its oscillator and transmitting a high-frequency search
`
`signal. Ex.1005, 4:11-17.
`
`Tobergte’s Fig. 1 (annotated below) illustrates its fixed station 2 and
`
`portable data carrier 1 which communicate wirelessly via their respective coils.
`
`Ex.1005, 2:8-14.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 20 of 90
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`
`
`data carrier 1
`
`wireless
`communications via
`coil 20 of data
`carrier 1 and coil 30
`of fixed station 2
`
`fixed station 2
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 1 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶38.
`
`
`
`Tobergte’s fixed station includes “a resonant circuit which consists of a coil
`
`30 and a capacitor 32 and which is connected to an oscillator 34,” as illustrated in
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 21 of 90
`
`
`Fig. 1 below (cropped to focus on the fixed station 2). Ex.1005, 3:32-34. This
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`configuration of a coil and capacitor (called a “resonant circuit” in Tobergte) is
`
`referred to as a “transmission oscillator” in the ’360 patent. See, e.g., Ex.1001, 5:9-
`
`11. Tobergte explains that “[a]n oscillator always consists of an active element and
`
`one or more frequency-determining elements,” and that the resonant circuit
`
`constitutes “the frequency-determining part of the oscillator.” Ex.1005, 2:8-17,
`
`3:60-62. Block 34 (labeled “oscillator”) is the active element of the oscillator.
`
`Ex.1003, ¶39.
`
`block 34 is active
`element of
`oscillator
`
`resonant circuit formed by
`coil 30 and capacitor 32 is
`frequency-determining part of
`oscillator
`(transmission oscillator)
`
`switch 42 connects
`oscillator 34 to
`energy source 40
`via lead 41
`
`processing device 38
`is connected to
`oscillator 34
`Ex.1005, Fig. 1 (cropped and annotated); Ex.1003, ¶39.
`
`
`
`The oscillator 34 receives data from processing device (computer) 38,
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 22 of 90
`
`
`modulates the data, and transmits it via coil 30. Ex.1005, 3:34-41. The active
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`oscillator element 34 is thus a communication element. Ex.1003, ¶40. A “switch
`
`42” on lead 41 physically connects and disconnects oscillator 34 to energy source
`
`40. Ex.1005, 4:11-14.
`
`Tobergte’s fixed station 2 further includes “a receiver device 36” that is
`
`connected via lead lines 31 and 33 to the resonant circuit and connected to switch
`
`42, as shown below in cropped Fig. 1. Ex.1005, 3:42-45.
`
`oscillator 34
`(communication element)
`
`resonant circuit formed by
`coil 30 and capacitor 31
`(transmission oscillator)
`
`receiver device 36
`connected to
`resonant circuit
`
`switch 42
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 1 (cropped and annotated); Ex.1003, ¶41.
`
`
`
`Tobergte explains that one of the functions of the receiver device 36 is to
`
`detect the presence of a nearby data carrier. Ex.1005, 4:4-26. It does this by
`
`measuring a change in voltage on the leads 31 and 33 connected to the resonant
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 23 of 90
`
`
`circuit. Ex.1005, 4:4-26. Specifically, the “coil 30 in the fixed station 2 receives
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`the signal transmitted by the data carrier 1 and generates a corresponding voltage
`
`on the leads 31 and 33, which voltage is evaluated by the receiver circuit 36.”
`
`Ex.1005, 4:4-9. When the receiver device 36 detects a change in the monitored
`
`voltage, it activates switch 42 to “switch[] on” the active oscillator 34
`
`(communication element) by connecting it to energy source 40. Ex.1005, 4:11-14.
`
`This sequence is illustrated in Fig. 1 below.
`
`(iv) oscillator 34
`(communication element)
`switched on and sends
`search signal
`
`(i) nearby data carrier
`causes change in voltage in
`resonant circuit
`(transmission oscillator)
`
`(ii) receiver device
`36 (measuring
`device) detects
`change in voltage
`and sends control
`signal to switch 42
`
`(iii) switch 42 closes and connects
`energy source 40 to oscillator 34
`(communication element)
`Ex.1005, Fig. 1 (cropped and annotated); Ex.1003, ¶42.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Cole
`
`Like the ’360 patent and Tobergte, Cole relates to short-range, contactless
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 24 of 90
`
`
`communications between electronic devices. Ex.1006, Abstract. Cole in particular
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`describes a technique for “automated detection of the presence” of nearby portable
`
`devices, such as electronic labels. Ex.1006, Abstract, 1:4-10. Cole’s technique
`
`relies upon known “field disturbance principles” such as changes in “impedance”
`
`of an antenna. Ex.1006, 1:11-15, 4:7-22.
`
`In more detail, Cole teaches a “presence sensing antenna” with an inductor
`
`coil and tuning capacitor (i.e., a resonant circuit) that creates a “presence sensing
`
`field.” Ex.1006, 4:7-22, 9:38-46, 9:65-67; Ex.1003, ¶44. When an electronic label
`
`containing a corresponding resonant circuit enters the field, a “modification of the
`
`impedance of [the] antenna” is produced. Ex.1006, 4:7-22. When a change in
`
`impedance greater than a threshold value is observed, “a label presence output
`
`signal” (LPO) is output. Ex.1006, 4:20-22.
`
`Figs. 11 and 12 of Cole (annotated below) illustrate an example embodiment
`
`of the elements associated with its detection technique. Presence detector 4 (shown
`
`in more detail in Fig. 12) includes a “label presence antenna (LPA) system 40”
`
`with “inductor 35 tuned by capacitor 41” (i.e., a resonant circuit).3 Ex.1006, 9:35-
`
`67. In the example, when “the presence of label 2 provides a disturbance to the
`
`
`3 Cole uses the terms “inductor” and “coil” interchangeably. See, e.g., Ex.1006,
`
`9:38-46.
`
`23
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 25 of 90
`
`
`impedance of inductor 35 seen by presence detector 4,” the detector will issue label
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`presence output signal LPO. Ex.1006, 9:45-49, 10:44-50.
`
`(i) electronic label 2 enters
`field of inductor coil 35
`
`(iii) presence detector 4
`detects impedance change
`and outputs label
`presence output signal
`Ex.1006, Fig. 11 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶45.
`
`(ii) impedance of coil 35
`changes
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 26 of 90
`
`
`
`presence detector 4
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`coil 35 and
`capacitor 41
` (resonant circuit)
`
`label
`presence
`output signal
`
`Ex.1006, Fig. 12 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶45.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Reasons to Combine Tobergte and Cole
`
`For the reasons set forth below, a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`combine the teachings of Cole with those of Tobergte. Ex.1003, ¶46. It would have
`
`been obvious, beneficial, and predictable to apply Cole’s impedance-based
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-12 Filed 01/19/23 Page 27 of 90
`
`
`presence detecting technique to Tobergte’s fixed station—for example, to fully
`
`IPR2022-01136 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,174,360
`
`automate the switching on of Tobergte’s communication element and improve ease
`
`of operation. Ex.1003, ¶46.
`
`As an initial matter, a POSITA, when considering the teachings of Tobergte
`
`would have also considered the teachings of Cole. Ex.1003, ¶47. Both Tobergte
`
`and Cole relate to contactless communications using resonant circuits. See
`
`Ex.1005, 3:18-19, 3:32-33; Ex.1006, 4:11-15, cl. 18. And, as discussed above, both
`
`Tobergte and Cole describe in detail methods of detecting and communicating with
`
`a device. Ex.1005, 4:11-14; Ex.1006, 1:7-10. As such, both Tobergte and Cole are
`
`analogous art to the ’360 patent. See, e.g., Ex.1001, 6:63-67; Ex.1003, ¶47.
`
`A POSITA would have been specifically motivated to incorporate Cole’s
`
`presence detection technique into Tobergte because doing so would address a well-
`
`known inefficiency in Tobergte. Ex.1003, ¶48. Specifically, it would eliminate the
`
`need for a user of a data carrier to manually initiate the detection process. Ex.1003,
`
`¶48 (citing Ex.1005, 1:60-62).
`
`In more detail, Tobergte explains that its fixed station automatically
`
`determines the presence of a nearby data carrier by detecting a voltage on its
`
`resonant circuit, as discussed above. Ex.1005, 4:4-14. This voltage on the resonant
`
`circuit is generated by a “signal transmitted by the data carrier