Trials@uspto. gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 6
`Date: June 15, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`THE NOCO COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`PILOT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`Before JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, JULIA HEANEY,and
`STEVEN M. AMUNDSON,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HEANEY,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of/nter Partes Review
`35 US.C. § 314
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 6
`Date: June 15, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`THE NOCO COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`PILOT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`Before JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, JULIA HEANEY,and
`STEVEN M. AMUNDSON,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HEANEY,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of/nter Partes Review
`35 US.C. § 314
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Noco Company,Inc. (“Petitioner’’) filed a petition to institute an
`
`interpartes review challenging claims 1—24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,235,673
`
`B2 (Ex. 1001 (“the *673 patent”)). Paper 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Pilot Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner’) did notfile a Preliminary Response.
`
`Institution of an interpartes review is authorized by statute when “the
`
`information presentedin the petition .
`
`.
`
`. showsthat there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respectto at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. §314(a) (2018). Upon
`
`consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine the
`
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that tt would prevail in
`
`showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challengedin the Petition.
`
`Accordingly, we institute an interpartes review ofall claims andall grounds
`
`asserted in the Petition.!
`
`A.
`
`RelatedProceedings
`
`Theparties identify the following litigation involving the 673 patent:
`
`Pilot, Inc. v. The NOCO Company, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00389 (D. Ariz. ).
`
`Pet. 75; Paper 3, 2. Petitioner also indicates thatit filed a petition requesting
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 11,124,077 in IPR2022-01237, which includes
`
`claims that are substantially similar to the claims of the 673 patent. Pet. 75.
`
`1 Guidance on the Impact ofSAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (Apr. 26, 2018),
`https://www. uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-
`board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial; see also SAS Inst., Inc. v. lancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359-60 (2018).
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`B.
`
`The ’673 Patent
`
`The *673 patent, titled “Automobile Charger,”is directed to “a novel
`
`automobile charger with a safe power supply charging quickly.” Ex. 1001,
`
`code (54), 1:24—25. The 673 patent explains that prior art automobile
`
`charging devices, 1.e., devices for jumpstarting vehicles, suffered from
`
`various problems,including an inability to automatically detect whether a
`
`load (e.g., an automobile storage battery) is connected, whether an electrode
`
`is connected with an automobile storage battery reversely, whether an
`
`automobile engine or storage battery has a reverse current, and whether the
`
`battery state is suitable for heavy powergeneration.
`
`/d. at 1:30-36. The
`
`°673 patent aims to solve these problems, and depicts one solution in
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`4
`
`:
`x
`ia
`
`=
`3
`
`:
`;
`
`¢
`
`<
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram showing an embodimentof the automobile
`
`charger, including DC-to-DC module 1, microcontroller 2, voltage detection
`
`module 3, automobile start control module 4 (an electronic switch), load
`
`detection module 5, load module 6 (comprising the automobile battery and
`
`engine), and direct current power supply 7 (the jumpstarter battery).
`
`Id. at 2:32, 3:14, 3:35-37.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`The 673 patent explains that the DC-to-DC module provides “the
`
`stable voltage for the microcontroller which collects relevant data” and the
`
`microcontroller “determines whether the automobile storage battery is
`
`connected with the automobile engine through the load detection module.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:16—21, 4:25—27. The positive pole of the direct current power
`
`supply is connected with one lead of the DC-to-DC module, one end ofthe
`
`battery voltage detection module and one end of the load module; the
`
`negative pole of the direct current voltage is connected with the other end of
`
`the DC-to-DC module, one end ofthe microcontroller, one end of the
`
`automobile start control module and the other end of the battery voltage
`
`detection module.
`
`/d. at 3:18—26. Whenthe load 1s correctly connected,the
`
`automobile start control module is automatically activated, and the battery
`
`starts to supply powerto the load module.
`
`/d. at 4:22—24. Ifthe load is not
`
`connected,or positive and negative polarities are reversed, the automobile
`
`start control module is automatically deactivated, and the battery stops
`
`supplying powerto the load module.
`
`/d. at 4:25—35.
`
`The ’673 patent further explains that the automobile start control
`
`module conducts the powersupply for the load module through the
`
`microcontroller (Ex. 1001, 2:7—-11), which collects relevant data to conduct
`
`the corresponding control (id. at 2:46). Ina standby mode,the
`
`microcontroller closes all outputs whenthe voltage of the direct current
`
`powersupply is lower than that ofthe state being able to supply power and
`
`then recovers whenit 1s higher than that of the state being able to supply
`
`power.
`
`/d. at 2:25—30; see also id. at 4:36—38 (“the microcontroller closes
`
`all outputs whenthe battery voltage is lower than 9V, and recovers the
`
`normaloperation only whenthe battery voltage is larger than 10V”).
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`The ’673 patent states that its automobile charger provides benefits
`
`overprior art devices, including, inter alia, (1) controlling the supply power
`
`for the load, which “can offer more protection for the product, and reduce
`
`the productsize and material cost,” (2) providing low voltage protection to
`
`prevent damage caused by over-discharging the battery, (3) preventing
`
`improper operationsby the user, such as reversed polarity, which can cause
`
`damage to the automobileor direct current powersupply, and (4) employing
`
`voltage backflow protection for an abnormal load, wherein the automobile
`
`start line is closed to protect the battery when an abnormalvoltage1s
`
`detected. Ex. 1001, 2:7-49.
`
`The ’673 patent’s Figure 2 (reproduced below) depicts a circuit
`
`
`
`diagram for an automobile charger:
`
`Figure 2
`
`Figure 2 illustrates an automobile charger including microcontroller U2 and
`
`the modulesillustrated in Figure 1, except the load module (the automobile
`
`storage battery and the automobile engine). See Ex. 1001, 2:64—65,
`
`3:36-4:12, Figs. 1-2.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`As an example, the DC-to-DC module in Figure 2 comprises “a
`
`diode D1, a resistor R1, capacitor C1, a HT’7530 voltage stabilizing tube,
`
`[and] capacitors C2 and C3.” Ex. 1001, 3:39-40, Fig. 2. As another
`
`example, the battery voltage detection module in Figure 2 comprises
`
`“resistors R2, R13 and capacitor C6.” /d. at 4:9, Fig. 2. As another
`
`example, the load detection module in Figure 2 comprises “capacitor C7,
`
`resistors R9, 10, a capacitor C6 anda resistor R13.” /d. at 4:2—3, Fig. 2.
`
`Additionally, Figure 2 depicts electronic switching circuitry
`
`comprising a plurality of n-channel transistors identified as Q3_ 1, Q3_2,
`
`Q3_3, Q41, Q42, andQ43. Ex. 1001, Fig. 2; see id. at 2:13—15, 2:32,
`
`4:42. Further, Figure 2 shows Q3_ 1, Q3_2, and Q3_3 connected toa
`
`negative terminal (V-OUT-) of a depleted battery and Q41, Q42, and
`
`Q43 connected to a negative terminal (BT-) ofa power-supply battery.
`
`/d.
`
`at Fig. 2.
`
`C.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1—24 of the 673 patent. Pet. 1. Claim 1
`
`is the sole independent claim. Ex. 1001, clarms 1—24 (5:15-6:41).
`
`Claims 2—24 depend from claim 1.
`
`/d. Claim 1, reproducedbelow,is
`
`illustrative of the challenged claims andrecites as follows (with additional
`
`formatting and numbersfor reference purposes): ”
`
`1.
`
`A charger comprising:
`
`[1(a)] a microcontroller;
`
`[1(b)(1)] a battery connectedto a voltage regulator,
`
`? We use the numberssetforth in the Petition to identify the claim elements.
`See Pet. 21-29.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`[1(b)(11)] the battery capable of supplying power,via the
`voltage regulator, to the microcontroller,
`
`[1(b)(i1)] the battery also capable of supplying powerto an
`automobile battery whenthe battery has a predetermined
`voltage;
`
`[1(c)(4)] a load detectorcircuit, connected to the
`microcontroller, to detect when the chargeris correctly
`connected to the automobile battery,
`
`[1(c)(11)] and the microcontroller generating an outputsignal,
`whenthe chargeris correctly connected the automobile battery;
`and
`
`[1(d)] switching circuitry, including at least one switch, to
`operatively connectthe battery to the automobile battery when
`the microcontroller generates the output signal to supply a
`charge to the automobile battery.
`
`Td. at 5:15—30.
`
`D.—Asserted Grounds ofUnpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 6—7):
`
`Krieger, Tracey‘
`
`1, 2, 4-7, 12-14,
`18-22
`
`16, 17
`
`103
`
`Krieger*
`
`5
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
`35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the
`challenged claims have aneffectivefiling date after March 16, 2013,
`we apply the AIAversionsof the statutory bases for unpatentability.
`+ US 2004/0130298 A] to Kriegeret al., published July 8, 2004 (Ex. 1005).
`> US 2010/0173182 Al to Baxteret al., published July 8, 2010 (Ex. 1006).
`© WO 2012/080996 A1to Traceyet al., published June 21, 2012 (Ex. 1007).
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`1-10, 12-15,
`18—22, 24
`
`13, 14, 18-22
`
` [6s«‘16, 17
`
`103
`
`Richardson’
`
`Richardson, Lai®
`Richardson, Tracey
`I
`Richardson, Krieger
`
`Baxter
`
`Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Jonathan R. Wood, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003).
`
`I. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`In an interpartes review, we construe claim terms accordingto the
`
`standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-17 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2022). Under Phillips, claim
`
`terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415
`
`F.3dat 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the
`
`meaningthat the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention.” /d. at 1313. “Importantly, the person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art is deemedto read the claim term not only in the
`
`context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the
`
`context of the entire patent, including the specification.” /d.
`
`Petitioner arguesthat in the 673 patent, “[a]ll of the claim terms are
`
`given their plain meaning, as understood by the [person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art], unless indicated otherwise.” Pet. 7.
`
`7 US 2013/0154543 A1 to Richardsonet al., published June 20, 2013
`(Ex. 1004).
`® US8,232,772 B2to Laiet al., issued July 31, 2012 (Ex. 1008).
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`Wedetermine that we do not need to explicitly construe any
`
`claim term for purposesof this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp.v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(stating “we need only construe terms“that are in controversy, and only to
`299
`
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’”
`
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc.
`
`v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`B.
`
`Level ofOrdinary Skill in the Art
`
`Factors pertinent to a determination ofthe level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art include “(1) educationallevel of the inventor; (2) type of problems
`
`encounteredin the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity
`
`with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and
`
`(6) educational level of workers active in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v.
`
`Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696-97 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic
`
`Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381—82 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1983)). Notall such factors may be present in every case, and one or
`
`more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case.
`
`/d.
`
`Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time ofthe
`
`invention “would have been a person havingat least a Bachelor’s Degree in
`
`a relevant engineering discipline such aselectrical engineering andatleast
`
`twoyears of relevant experience in the design and/or developmentof
`
`automotive electrical systems, or a Masters or more advanceddegree in a
`
`relevant engineering discipline such aselectrical engineering.” Pet. 5 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003 4 46).
`
`In light of the record before us, and for purposesof this Decision, we
`
`adopt Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as
`
`consistent with the ’673 patent and the assertedpriorart.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`C.
`
`Principles ofLaw
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed
`
`invention as a whole would have been obviousbefore the effectivefiling
`
`date ofthe claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`
`which the claimed invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. The question of
`
`obviousnessis resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`
`including (1) the scope and contentofthe prior art; (2) any differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the priorart; (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art; and (4) whenavailable, evidence such as commercial
`
`success, long felt but unsolved needs, and failure of others. Graham v. John
`
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398, 407 (2007) (“While the sequence of these questions might be
`
`reorderedin any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
`
`inquiry that controls.”’).
`
`The Supreme Court madeclear that we apply “an expansive and
`
`flexible approach”to the question of obviousness. KSR,550 U.S. at 415.
`
`Whethera patent claiming the combination ofprior art elements would have
`
`been obviousis determined by whether the improvementis more than the
`
`predictable use of prior art elements accordingto their established functions.
`
`Id. at 417. Reaching this conclusion, however, requires more than merely
`
`showingthat the prior art includes separate references covering each
`
`separate limitation in a challenged claim. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex,
`
`Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness
`
`additionally requires that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the
`
`invention “would have selected and combined thoseprior art elements in the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`normal course of research and developmentto yield the claimed invention.”
`
`Id.
`
`D.
`
`Alleged Obviousness Based on Krieger (Ground 1)
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 2, 4-7, 12-14, and 18—22 are obvious
`
`over Krieger. Pet. 21-39.
`
`1. Krieger (Ex. 1005)
`
`Krieger is titled “Microprocessor Controlled Booster Apparatus with
`
`Polarity Protection,” and published on July 8, 2004. Ex. 1005, codes (43),
`
`(54). Krieger describes “a booster device used for boosting a depleted
`
`battery” that includes a polarity-protection circuit for preventing current
`
`flow to the depleted battery “unless properpolarity is achieved.” /d. J 2,
`
`10, 11, 28, Abstract.
`
`Krieger describes problems with conventional booster devices. See
`
`Ex. 1005 4] 4-9. For example, Krieger explains that connecting a boosting
`
`battery’s terminals to a depleted battery’s terminals “can be very dangerous
`
`if the batteries are connected incorrectly.” /d. 4/5. A “large current passes
`
`through the electric wires” even when“the twobatteries are connected
`
`correctly.” /d. But when “the two batteries are connected erroneously, a
`
`current which passesthrough the electric wires 1s 10 to 20 timeslarger than
`
`the current existing on the electric wires whenthe batteries are correctly
`
`connected.” /d. Further, an “incorrect connection may result in one or both
`
`of the batteries beg short-circuited,” and “in some cases, an explosion,fire
`
`and damageto the vehicle or to a person mayresult.” /d.
`
`To addressthose issues, Krieger discloses a booster device that “can
`
`be used to ensure that the connection of the two batteries is made correctly
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`and in a safe manner.” Ex. 1005 9/6, 10. Krieger’s Figure 1, depicting a
`
`booster device including a polarity-protection circuit, is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 1 is a circuit schematicillustrating a booster device including
`
`boosting battery 2 with positive terminal 4 and negative terminal6,
`
`switch 12 comprising field-effect transistors 12a—12d, and polarity-sensing
`
`circuit (opto-isolator) 16 coupled to boosting battery 2 and depleted
`
`battery 11. Ex. 1005 9 22, 28-31, Fig. 1. “The positive terminal 4 of the
`
`boosting battery 2 is coupled to one of a pair ofalligator clamps 8, 10 to be
`
`connected to” depleted battery 11 “via a wire or battery cable.” /d. ¥ 28,
`
`Fig. 1. “The negative terminal6 of the boosting battery 2 1s connected to the
`
`other ofthe alligator clamps 8, 10 to be connected to” depleted battery 11
`
`“via a wire or battery cable.” /d. 9 28, Fig. 1.
`
`“The switch 12 is activated to complete a boosting circuit between the
`
`boosting battery 2 and the depleted battery 11 only whena correctpolarity
`
`connection betweenthe batteries is attained.”” Ex. 10054] 29. The
`
`polarity-protection circuit preferably includes solid-state components rather
`
`than “mechanicalor electro-mechanical devices, such as solenoids,” and
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`[t]he switch 12 is preferabl[y] a solid state device, such asa transistor,
`
`diode,field effect transistor (FET), etc.” /d. J§] 10, 13-14, 30,33. Krieger’s
`
`Figure 1 depicts switch 12 as FETs 12a—12d connected in parallel with each
`
`other.
`
`/d. 430. “The switch 12 is activated by a polarity sensing circuit 16
`
`to allow current flow from the boosting battery 2 to the depleted battery 11.”
`
`Id. 4 31.
`
`Polarity-sensing circuit (opto-isolator) 16 includes phototransistor 22
`
`and light emitting diode (LED) 26. Ex. 1005 § 32, Fig. 1. “The opto-
`
`isolator 16 only turns on whentt 1s properly biasedas a result of a correct
`
`polarity connection being made betweenthe boosting battery 2 and the
`
`depleted battery 11.” Jd. ¥ 33.
`
`Krieger’s Figure 5 (reproduced below) depicts a microprocessor-
`
`controlled booster system:
`
`RD
`
`Aneeensnninnnnnnnnifianiennnnnnn
`
`Figure 5 illustrates a booster system including boosting battery 2 with
`
`positive terminal 4 and negative terminal 6, switch 12 comprisingfield-
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`effect transistors 12a—12d, opto-isolator 16, microprocessor60, display 64,
`
`and voltage regulator 70. Ex. 1005 {fj 26, 28, 43-46, Fig. 5.
`
`Microprocessor 60 may “perform essentially all of the control
`
`functions needed for operation of the jumpstarter.” Ex. 1005443. With
`
`“a feedbackcircuit or other means,” microprocessor 60 may monitor (1) “the
`
`voltage and/or current being supplied to the depleted battery 11 from the
`
`booster battery 2” and (2) “the voltage and/or current of the battery 11.” /d.
`
`444. By doing so, microprocessor 60 maydetect “short circuits or other
`
`faults.” /d. “A resistive divider may be usedto provide the voltage and
`
`current measurementsto the microprocessor’s A/D input.” /d. Further,
`
`microprocessor60 receives a “low voltage power supply,” e.g., 5 volts, from
`
`boosting battery 2 via voltage regulator 70.
`
`/d. 9 46, Fig. 5.
`
`Voltage regulator 70 is “coupled to the boosting battery 2 and the
`
`depleted battery 11 for detecting their charge levels.” Ex. 1005 4 52, Fig. 5.
`
`Voltage regulator 70 “producesa voltage proportional to the voltage of the
`
`boosting battery 2.” /d. § 53. Microprocessor 60 detects “whenthe voltage
`
`of the boosting battery 2 falls below a predeterminedlevel, for example,
`
`about 80% ofits rated value.” /d. Voltage regulator 70 also “produces a
`
`voltage proportional to the voltage of the depleted battery 11.” /d. 4 54.
`
`Microprocessor60 “receivesthis signal from” voltage regulator 70 and
`
`“determines and displays the voltage of the depleted battery 11 on
`
`display 64.” Jd.
`
`Preamble
`
`2. Analysis ofClaim |
`
`Claim 1 recites “[a] charger.” Ex. 1001, 5:15.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`Petitioner contendsthat Krieger discloses claim 1’s preamble because
`
`Krieger discloses a microprocessor-controlled charger and Krieger’s Figure
`
`5 depicts that system. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1005 ¢ 43).
`
`Generally, a preamble does not limit a claim. Allen Eng’g Corp.v.
`
`Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We need not
`
`decide whether claim 1’s preamble limits the claim because Petitioner
`
`establishes sufficiently for purposesofinstitution that Krieger discloses
`
`claim 1’s preamble. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1003 99 49, 74. Specifically, Krieger
`
`discloses a microprocessor-controlled charger system. Ex. 1005 4 43, Fig. 5;
`
`see Ex. 1003 9] 49, 74. Krieger explains that the microprocessor may
`
`“perform essentially all of the control functions needed for operation of the
`
`jumpstarter.” Ex. 1005 4 43; see Ex. 1003 4 51.
`
`(a)
`
`Limitation I (a)
`Claim 1 recites “a microcontroller.” Ex. 1001, 5:16.
`
`Petitioner contendsthat Krieger disclosesthis limitation because
`
`Krieger’s Fig. 5 discloses microcontroller 60 within a jump-starter system.
`
`Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¢ 43, Fig. 5). Dr. Wood’s testimonyasto limitation
`
`1(a) supports the Petition. See Ex. 1003 § 76.
`
`(b)
`
`Limitation 1(b) (i)
`
`Claim | recites “a battery connected to a voltage regulator.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:17.
`
`Petitioner contendsthat Kriegerdiscloses limitation 1(b)(1) because
`
`Krieger’s microprocessor-controlledjump-starter system includes voltage
`
`regulator 70 coupled to boosting battery 2 through resistor 62. Pet. 22
`
`(citing Ex. 1005 952, Fig. 5). Dr. Wood’s testimonyasto limitation 1(b)(1)
`
`supports the Petition. See Ex. 1003 § 77.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`(c)
`
`Limitation 1(b) (ii)
`
`Claim | recites “the battery capable of supplying power,via the
`
`voltage regulator, to the microcontroller.” Ex. 1001, 5:17-19.
`
`Petitioner contendsthat Krieger discloses limitation 1(b)(1) because
`
`the voltage regulator in Krieger’s microprocessor-controlledjump-starter
`
`system supplies the microprocessorwith a “low voltage powersupply(e.g.,
`
`5 volts) from battery 2 via voltage regulator 70.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1005
`
`4 46, Fig. 5). Dr. Wood’s testimonyasto limitation 1(b)(11) supports the
`
`Petition. See Ex. 1003 4 78.
`
`(dq)
`
`Limitation 1(b) (iii)
`
`Claim 1 recites “the battery also capable of supplying powerto an
`
`automobile battery when the battery has a predetermined voltage.” Ex.
`
`1001, 5:19-21.
`
`Petitioner contendsthat Krieger discloses limitation 1(b)(11) because
`
`Krieger’s boosting battery 2 is “coupledto a pair ofalligator clamps 8, 10 to
`
`be connected to a vehicle battery to be charged.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1005
`
`4] 28, Fig. 5). Petitioner also contendsthat Krieger discloses:
`
`(1) monitoring the boosting battery “to detect when the
`battery falls below a predetermined voltage neededfor
`supplying powerto” the automobile battery; and
`
`notifying the operator whenthe boosting battery “1s low
`(2)
`and needsto be recharged,”e. g., when the microprocessor
`detects that “the boosting battery has fallen below ‘a
`predeterminedlevel, for example, about 80% ofits rated
`value.””
`
`Id. at 24 (quoting Ex. 1005 4 44, 53).
`
`According to Petitioner, “the boosting battery is ‘capable’ of
`
`supplying powerto an automobile battery whenthe [boosting] battery hasat
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`least a predetermined voltage,1.e., the boosting battery is above the
`
`“predeterminedlevel.’” Pet. 24—25.
`
`Dr. Wood’s testimonyas to limitation 1(b)(i11) supports the Petition.
`
`See Ex. 1003 9 79-82.
`
`(e)
`
`Limitation 1(c)(i)
`
`Claim 1 recites “a load detector circuit, connected to the
`
`microcontroller, to detect when the chargeris correctly connected
`
`to the automobile battery.” Ex. 1001, 5:21-23.
`
`Petitioner contendsthat Krieger discloses limitation 1(c)(1) because
`
`Krieger’s microprocessor-controlledjump-starter system includes “a
`
`feedback circuit or other means”for permitting the microprocessorto
`
`monitor “the voltage and/or current” of the automobile battery. Pet. 26
`
`(quoting Ex. 1005 § 44). Petitioner contends that Krieger discloses using
`
`[a] resistive divider” to “provide the voltage and current measurements to
`
`the microprocessor’s A/D input.” /d. (quoting Ex. 1005 4 44). Petitioner
`
`also contendsthat the microprocessoruses “the monitored voltage and/or
`
`current” to detect both (1) “that the automobile battery is connected” and
`
`(2) “that the positive and negative polarities of the automobile battery are
`
`not reversed,” 1.e., “that the charger 1s “correctly connected to the automobile
`
`battery.’” /d. at27.
`
`Dr. Wood’s testimonyasto limitation 1(c)(1) supports the Petition.
`
`See Ex. 1003 9¥ 83-85.
`
`(f)—Limitation 1(c)(ii)
`
`Claim 1 recites “the microcontroller generating, when the chargeris
`
`correctly connected to the automobile battery, an output signal.” Ex. 1001,
`
`5:24-25.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`Petitioner contendsthat Krieger discloses limitation 1(c)(11) because
`
`the microprocessor in Krieger’s microprocessor-controlled charger system:
`
`controls switch 12 “to supply powerfrom the boosting
`(1)
`battery 2 to the depleted automobile battery 11 when the
`microprocessordeterminesthat the automobile battery 1s
`‘correctly connected’”;
`
`“provides output signals to activate the switch 12 into a
`(2)
`conducting state”; and
`
`“can deactivate switch 12 to terminate the jumpstarting
`(3)
`process whenafault is detected.”
`
`Pet. 27—28 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¥ 45).
`
`Dr. Wood’s testimony supports the Petition as to limitation 1(c)(1).
`
`See Ex. 1003 ¥ 86.
`
`(g)
`
`Limitation 1(d)
`Claim 1 recites “switching circuitry, including at least one switch,
`
`to operatively connect the battery to the automobile battery when the
`
`microcontroller generates the output signal to supply a charge to the
`
`automobile battery.” Ex. 1001, 5:27—30.
`
`Petitioner contendsthat Krieger discloses limitation 1(d) because
`
`Krieger’s microprocessor-controlled charger system includes FET-based
`
`switch 12 that the microprocessoractivates “to complete a boosting circuit
`
`between the boosting battery 2 and the depleted battery 11.” Pet. 28-29
`
`(quoting Ex. 1005 4 29). Further, Petitioner asserts that “the switch may
`
`include ‘a number[of] FETs 12a—12d connectedin parallel with each
`
`other.’” /d. at29 (quoting Ex. 1005 { 30).
`
`Dr. Wood’s testimonyasto limitation 1(d) supports the Petition. See
`
`Ex. 1003 § 87.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`Conclusion as to Claim 1
`
`As discussed above, Petitioner’s analysis explains how Krieger
`
`teaches claim 1’s subject matter. At this stage ofthe proceeding, Patent
`
`Ownerdoesnot dispute or otherwise challenge Petitioner’s information and
`
`analysis. Based on the current record and for the reasons advanced by
`
`Petitioner and supported by Dr. Wood’s testimony,Petitioner establishes
`
`sufficiently for purposesofinstitution that Krieger teaches or suggests all of
`
`the limitations of claim 1, and thus demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing in proving claim 1 unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Krieger.
`
`3. Claims 2, 4-7, 12-14, and 18-22
`
`Claims 2, 4—7, 12—14, and 18—22 dependdirectly orindirectly from
`
`claim 1. Petitioner’s analysis explains how Krieger teaches or suggests the
`
`subject matter of claims 2, 4, 6-7, 12-14 and 18-22”. See Pet. 30-39.
`
`Dr. Wood’s testimony supports Petitioner’s analysis. See Ex. 1003 4§ 89-
`
`114.
`
`After reviewing the undisputed evidence and argumentsin the
`
`Petition, we are persuadedfor the reasons advancedin the Petition and
`
`supported by Dr. Wood’s testimonythat Petitioner establishes sufficiently
`
`for purposesofinstitution that Krieger teaches or suggests the subject matter
`
`of claims 2, 4, 6-7, 12-14 and 18-22. See Pet. 29-39; Ex. 1003 JJ 89-114.
`
`Thus, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`
`proving claims 2, 4, 6-7, 12-14 and 18—22 unpatentable under § 103 as
`
`obviousover Krieger.
`
`” The Petition does not include analysis of Krieger’s teaching as to claim 5.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`4. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood ofprevailing with respect to its argumentthat claims
`
`1, 2,4, 6-7, 12-14 and 18—22 are unpatentable as obvious in view of
`
`Krieger.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the arguments tn the Petition and the evidence of record, we
`
`determinethat Petitioner has established a reasonablelikelihood of
`
`prevailing in showingatleast claims 1,2, 4-7, 12—14, and 18—22 ofthe
`
`°673 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly, weinstitute an interpartes
`
`review on all of the challenged claims and onall of the grounds presented in
`
`the Petition. See PGS GeophysicalASv. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-noinstitution
`
`choice respecting a petition, embracingall challenges included in the
`
`petition’).
`
`Ourfactual findings, conclusions of law, and determinationsat this
`
`stage of the proceeding are preliminary, and based on the evidentiary record
`
`developed thus far. This is not a final decision as to the patentability of
`
`claims for which interpartes review 1s instituted. Ourfinal decision will be
`
`based on the record as fully developed during trial.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDEREDthatan interpartes review ofall challenged claims of
`
`the °673 patentis instituted with respectto all groundsset forth in the
`
`Petition; and
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00167
`Patent 11,235,673 B2
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat pursuantto 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`
`interpartes review ofthe ’673 patent is hereby instituted commencing on
`
`the entry date of this Decision, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given ofthe institution ofa trial.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph M. Sauer
`Matthew W. Johnson
`David B. Cochran
`Marlee R Hartenstein
`JONES DAY
`jmsauer@jonesday.com
`mwyjohnson@jonesday.com
`dcochran@jonesday.com
`mhartenstein@jonesday.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Alex W. Ruge
`Robert R. Brunelli
`SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
`aruge(@sheridanross.com
`rbrunelli@sheridanross.com
`
`21
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
