throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`
`Entered: August 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NXP USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INSIDE SECURE and NFC TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
` ____________
`
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`NXP USA, Inc.1 (“NXP”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of
`claims 13–15, 18–20, 23–25, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, and 46 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,098,770 B2 (Ex. 1301, “the ’770 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). On
`September 8, 2016, we issued a Decision granting institution of inter partes
`review of claims 13–15, 18–20, 23–25, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, and 46 of the ’770
`patent on one of the grounds asserted. Paper 10 (“Dec. on Inst.”), 22.
`Exclusive licensee NFC Technology, LLC (“NFCT”)2 then filed a Patent
`
`
`1 According to updated mandatory notice information filed under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8, “effective November 7, 2016, original petitioner NXP
`Semiconductors USA, Inc. merged with and into original petitioner
`Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., which then changed its name to ‘NXP USA,
`Inc.’” Paper 18, 1. We have updated the caption accordingly.
`
`2 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office assignment records indicate that the
`inventors assigned the ’770 patent to Inside Technologies, in an assignment
`recorded on April 10, 2003 (Reel/Frame 13959/852). A name change of
`Inside Contactless to Inside Secure was recorded on October 28, 2013
`(Reel/Frame 31505/332); and a license of the ’770 patent from Inside Secure
`and France Telecom S.A. to France Brevets SAS was recorded on October 1,
`2013 (Reel/Frame 31317/264). Additionally, although not recorded in
`connection with the ’770 patent, a name change of Inside Technologies to
`Inside Contactless S.A., executed on August 28, 2003, was recorded on
`August 25, 2016, in connection with certain other patents (Reel/Frame
`39542/0427). In disclosures filed in this proceeding, NFCT asserts that it
`and its parent company, France Brevets SAS, are the real parties in interest.
`Paper 6, 2. NFCT further asserts that it “possesses all substantial rights to
`the ’770 Patent,” “exclusively owns ‘the right to defend the validity and/or
`enforceability’” of the ’770 Patent,” and “has standing to step into the shoes
`of the Patent Owner in this proceeding.” Id. at 2–3. NFCT also provides
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`Owner’s Response (Paper 15, “PO Resp.”), and NXP filed a Reply (Paper
`20, “Pet. Reply”). A consolidated hearing for this proceeding and related
`Cases IPR2016-00681, IPR2016-00682, and IPR2016-00683 was held on
`June 9, 2017. A transcript of that hearing is included in the record. Paper 26
`(“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6, and we issue this Final
`Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For
`the reasons discussed below, we determine that NXP has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 13–15, 18–20, 23–25, 36, 37, 40,
`42, 43, and 46 of the ’770 patent are unpatentable on the grounds upon
`which we instituted inter partes review.
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Real Parties in Interest and Related Proceedings
`NXP identifies NXP Semiconductors N.V., NXP B.V., and NXP
`Semiconductors Netherlands B.V. as real parties in interest with itself for
`this proceeding. Paper 18, 1. NFCT identifies France Brevets, S.A.S., as a
`real party in interest with itself for this proceeding. Paper 6, 2; see supra
`note 2.
`
`
`evidence to support these assertions, namely documents that purport to be
`license agreements between NFCT and Inside Secure. See Ex. 2001;
`Ex. 2002. In light of NFCT’s representations, we have treated NFCT as
`Patent Owner throughout this proceeding and continue to do so for purposes
`of this Decision, as reflected by the caption.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`
`The parties identify NFC Technology, LLC v. Samsung Electronics
`Co., No. 2:15-cv-00283 (E.D. Tex.), as a related case. Pet. 6; Paper 6, 3.
`NXP also filed three other petitions challenging certain subsets of claims of
`the ’770 patent. Case IPR2016-00681, Paper 5 (Corrected Petition); Case
`IPR2016-00682, Paper 5 (Corrected Petition); IPR2016-00683, Paper 3
`(Petition).
`B. The ’770 Patent
`The ’770 patent, titled “Contactless Integrated Circuit Reader,” was
`issued on August 29, 2006, and claims the benefit of a French patent
`application filed on October 16, 2000. Ex. 1301, [30], [45], [54], [63]. The
`’770 patent describes a contactless integrated circuit (“CIC”) reader that
`includes circuits for simulating the operation of a CIC, such that the CIC
`reader is able to send data to another CIC reader by inductive coupling. Id.
`at [57]. Figure 1 of the ’770 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic representation of a CIC reader and CIC. Id. at 5:6–8.
`With reference to Figure 1, CIC reader 10 produces alternating magnetic
`field FLD by means of antenna circuit 11, and transmits data by modulating
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`field FLD’s amplitude. Id. at 1:15–19. Field FLD causes induced
`alternating voltage Vac to appear in antenna circuit 21 of passive CIC 20,
`copying the amplitude modulations of field FLD and enabling the CIC to
`receive the data sent by the reader after filtering and demodulating induced
`voltage Vac. Id. at 1:25–30. CIC 20 sends data to CIC reader 10 via load
`modulation by short circuiting antenna circuit 21 by means of a switch
`driven by load modulation signal Sx. Id. at 1:31–34. The short circuiting of
`antenna circuit 21 cause a disturbance of field FLD that is detected by
`antenna circuit 11 of reader 10. Id. at 1:34–36. Reader 10 can extract load
`modulation signal Sx by filtering the signal present in antenna circuit 11, and
`deduce from it the data sent by CIC 20. Id. at 1:36–39.
`According to the ’770 patent, in applications that involve several
`terminals, it is sometimes desirable for this information to be collected by a
`data centralization system. Id. at 2:9–11. However, collecting such data
`manually can be tedious or costly. Id. at 2:11–22. To address this issue, the
`’770 patent describes a CIC reader capable of switching to a passive
`operating mode, in which the reader operates like a CIC in communicating
`with another reader. Id. at 2:29–33. “In other terms, this reader is capable
`of sending data to another reader according to the load modulation principle,
`and of receiving data that the other reader sends by modulating the magnetic
`field it sends out.” Id. at 2:33–37. Two contactless readers can, thus,
`communicate by having one of the two readers switch to the passive
`operating mode, allowing data to be exchanged without any physical contact
`between them. Id. at 2:38–42.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`
`The ’770 patent, thus, describes a CIC reader configured to operate in
`two different modes. In a first mode, the CIC reader generates and
`modulates a magnetic field to transmit data to another device, such as a CIC.
`Id. at 6:46–8:16. In the second mode, the CIC reader transmits data by
`applying a load modulation signal to its antenna circuit that disturbs the
`magnetic field generated by a second CIC reader. Id. at 8:17–9:62.
`The load modulation of the second CIC reader’s magnetic field can be
`accomplished in multiple ways, according to the ’770 patent. The preferred
`embodiment of the ’770 patent utilizes “pseudo active load modulation” in
`which the load modulation signal causes the antenna circuit to alternate
`between a ground state and an excitation state. Id. at 10:17–21. The ’770
`patent states that this method has the advantage of offering greater
`communication distance because the alternating signal pulses applied to the
`antenna circuit cause magnetic field pulses that can be detected by another
`reader at a greater distance than disturbances due to passive load
`modulation. Id. at 11:3–9. “By comparison with a classical load
`modulation, which is purely passive, the disturbance of the magnetic field
`obtained according to the third method can be qualified as ‘pseudo active
`load modulation’ due to the sending of the alternating magnetic field
`pulses.” Id. at 11:9–16.
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claims 13, 23, 36, and 42 are independent.
`Each of challenged claims 14, 15, and 18–20 depends directly or indirectly
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`from claim 13; challenged claims 24 and 25 depend from claim 23;
`challenged claims 37 and 40 depend from claim 36; and challenged claims
`43 and 46 depend from claim 42. Claim 13 is illustrative of the claimed
`subject matter and is reproduced below:
`13. A method for transferring data from a first contactless
`integrated circuit reader to a second contactless integrated circuit
`reader, the first and second readers operating by inductive coupling,
`each of the first and second readers comprising an antenna circuit
`that generates a magnetic field and an excitation circuit that delivers
`an alternating excitation signal to the respective antenna circuit, the
`method comprising:
`the first reader applying a data-carrying signal with two states to
`the antenna circuit of the first reader when data is to be
`transmitted to the second reader; and
`the second reader receiving the data-carrying signal by inductive
`coupling and extracting data from the received data-carrying
`signal.
`Ex. 1301, 13:34–47.
`D. Evidence Relied Upon
`The instituted grounds rely on the following references:
`
`
`
`Reference
`
`Ritter Ritter, International Patent Publication WO 98/58510
`(Dec. 23, 1998) (Ex. 1304B); English translation
`provided by NXP
`
`RH-E
`
`
`Klaus Finkenzeller, RFID Handbook: Radio-
`Frequency Identification Fundamentals and
`Applications (Rachel Waddington trans., John Wiley
`& Son, Ltd. 1999)
`
`Exhibit
`
`Ex. 1304A
`
`Ex. 1306
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`
`Reference
`
`RH-G Klaus Finkenzeller, RFID-Handbuch: Grundlagen
`und praktische Anwendungen induktiver
`Funkanlagen, Transponder und kontaktloser
`Chipkarten (Carl Hanser Verlag 1998) (Ex. 1308B);
`English translation provided by NXP
`
`Exhibit
`
`Ex. 1308A
`
`NXP also relies on two declarations of Richard T. Mihran, Ph.D.
`
`(Exs. 1303, 1314) in support of its Petition and Reply; and NFCT relies on
`the Declaration of Alyssa B. Apsel, Ph.D. (Ex. 2004) in support of its Patent
`Owner Response.
`E. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 13–15, 18–20, 23–25, 36,
`37, 40, 42, 43, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
`Ritter and the RFID Handbook.3 Dec. on Inst. 22.
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`
`3 NXP refers to RH-E and RH-G collectively as the “RFID Handbook” or
`simply as the “Handbook” and includes parallel citations to RH-E and RH-G
`throughout the Petition and Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Pet. 3; Pet. Reply
`1. NXP asserts that the relied-upon portions of RH-E and RH-G are
`substantially similar and presents each ground in the Petition in the form of
`“counterparts” labeled as “A” and “B,” where the “A” counterpart relies on
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`In the Decision on Institution, we addressed four claim terms for
`which NFCT proposed constructions in its Preliminary Response (Paper
`8)—“antenna circuit,” “load modulation signal,” “contactless integrated
`circuit,” and “contactless integrated circuit reader”—and determined that
`none required express construction at that stage of the proceeding. Dec. on
`Inst. 7–10.
`
`“contactless integrated circuit reader”
`1.
`NFCT in its Patent Owner Response again urges that construction of
`the term “contactless integrated circuit reader” is required. PO Resp. 5–12.
`NFCT contends that this term, which is recited in challenged independent
`claims 13 and 23 and challenged dependent claims 40 and 46, should be
`construed “in accordance with its broadest reasonable construction in light
`of the specification to be a ‘device that is configured to read data sent by
`load modulation from a contactless integrated circuit.’” Id. at 5–6.
`According to NFCT, this construction is consistent with the plain meaning
`of the term, which requires that a “contactless integrated circuit reader” be
`configured to read data from a “contactless integrated circuit.” Moreover,
`
`RH-E and the “B” counterpart relies on RH-G. Pet. 8. Except where
`otherwise noted, we follow NXP’s convention.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`NFCT contends, the contactless integrated circuit reader must also be able to
`read data sent from the contactless integrated circuit “‘by load modulation,’
`because that is how the contactless integrated circuit of the ’770 patent sends
`data to the contactless integrated circuit reader.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 2004
`¶ 30). NFCT cites two examples of a contactless integrated circuit from the
`specification of the ’770 patent and contends, “in each instance, the
`contactless integrated circuit communicates data using load modulation.”
`Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1301, 1:31–34, 6:56–7:2, Figs. 1, 2; Ex. 2004 ¶ 31).
`NFCT additionally points to disclosure in the specification of “extract[ing]
`the load modulation signal Sx by filtering the signal present in its antenna
`circuit 11 and deduc[ing] the data sent by the contactless integrated circuit
`from it,” and contends that “[t]he ’770 patent also explains that the
`contactless integrated circuit reader reads data sent by the contactless
`integrated circuit via load modulation.” Id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 1301, 1:36–
`39). Finally, NFCT contends that the extrinsic evidence, including both
`Dr. Apsel’s and Dr. Mihran’s testimony and the RFID Handbook, supports
`this construction. Id. at 9–12 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 33–36; Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 33, 39,
`40; Ex. 1306, 7–8, 38, 90–91, Figs. 1.6, 4.35; Ex. 1308A, 9–10, 38).
`In reply, NXP argues that NFCT’s construction improperly narrows
`the claims. Pet. Reply 1. According to NXP, this term can be understood
`under its plain and ordinary meaning and does not need construction, and
`NFCT’s construction is “inconsistent with the claims’ separate recitation of
`further requirement of ‘load modulation.’” Id. at 2. Specifically, NXP
`contends, “[s]everal of the claims directed to a ‘[CIC] reader’ separately
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`recite a ‘load modulation signal’ (e.g., claim 14) while others do not (e.g.,
`claim 13).” Id. Moreover, NXP asserts, although the ’770 patent describes
`using load modulation for communicating data from a CIC to a reader in an
`inductively coupled system, it does not define a CIC as using load
`modulation, and instead “unequivocally states that the invention is not
`intended to be limited by embodiments disclosed.” Id. at 2–3 (citing
`Ex. 1301, 4:67–5:4, 11:58–12:25; Ex. 1314 ¶ 18). NXP further contends
`that other ways to couple readers with transponders or CICs in RFID
`systems were known, including microwave coupling, and the ’770 patent
`itself discloses that “‘[a] reader according to the present invention may also
`be provided to operate exclusively in passive mode,’—which would not
`involve generating a magnetic field.” Id. at 3–4 (quoting Ex. 1301, 11:65–
`12:1) (citing Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 30–38; Ex. 1306, 25, Fig. 3.1; Ex. 1308A, 25,
`Fig. 3.1; Ex. 1314 ¶¶ 18–19). Finally, NXP disputes NFCT’s contentions
`that the RFID Handbook and Dr. Mihran’s testimony define contactless
`integrated circuit reader to be limited to a device configured to receive data
`sent by load modulation. Id. at 4–5.
`Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and the cited evidence, we
`conclude that the broadest reasonable construction of “contactless integrated
`circuit reader” is simply “device configured to read data from a contactless
`
`
`4 We assume that NXP’s reference to “claim 1” should instead be to “claim
`11,” as the former does not recite a contactless integrated circuit reader.
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`integrated circuit.” NFCT appears to concede that this construction
`represents the plain meaning of the term (see PO Resp. 6), and we agree
`with NXP that the record evidence does not support reading the language
`“sent by load modulation” into that plain meaning (Pet. Reply 2–5). Under
`the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms generally are
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one
`of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The United
`States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has “recognized ‘only two
`exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and
`acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full
`scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.’”
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., 829 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(quoting Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365
`(Fed. Cir. 2012)). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations
`are not to be read from the specification into the claims. See In re Van
`Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, NFCT does not
`persuasively advance a disavowal or lexicography theory, which always
`requires exacting standards of clarity. GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight,
`Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The standards for finding
`lexicography and disavowal are exacting.”). Absent lexicography or
`disavowal, the plain meaning of the term governs. See Thorner v. Sony
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`(“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the
`preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only
`embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). The
`case for not reading “sent by load modulation” into the claims is particularly
`strong here, where, as NXP points out, certain claims of the ’770 patent
`reciting a contactless integrated circuit reader additionally recite load
`modulation, while others do not. Pet. Reply 2; see also SRI Int’l v.
`Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“It is settled
`law that when a patent claim does not contain a certain limitation and
`another claim does, that limitation cannot be read into the former claim in
`determining either validity or infringement.”).
`“load modulation signal”
`2.
`Although neither NFCT in its Patent Owner Response nor NXP in its
`briefing in this case expressly requests construction of the term “load
`modulation signal,” we note that we determine in the Final Written Decision
`filed concurrently herewith in related Case IPR2016-00682 that the broadest
`reasonable construction of that term, as recited in challenged claims 14, 15,
`23–25, 36, 37, 42, and 43, is a “signal that transmits data by disturbing the
`magnetic field of another device.” See IPR2016-00682, slip op. at 13–20
`(PTAB Aug. 30, 2017). We incorporate that analysis herein.
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`
`B. Legal Principles
`To prevail in an inter partes review, a petitioner must prove the
`unpatentability of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “[T]he petitioner has the burden
`from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes
`review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports
`the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). The burden of persuasion
`never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden
`of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, a petitioner cannot satisfy its
`burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.”
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a
`whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-obviousness, i.e., secondary
`considerations.5 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of
`“whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`obviousness”)); see also In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327,
`1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“As part of the obviousness inquiry, we consider
`‘whether a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to
`combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there
`would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” (quoting
`DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
`464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006))).
`We analyze the instituted grounds of unpatentability in accordance
`with the principles stated above.
`C. Level of Skill in the Art
`Based on testimony of Dr. Mihran, NXP contends that the applicable
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have a minimum of a bachelor’s
`degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, and approximately
`
`
`5 The parties do not address secondary considerations, which, accordingly,
`do not form part of our analysis.
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`three to five years of industrial or academic experience in working with
`wireless communication technology, including radio frequency identification
`(RFID) devices and systems. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 28-30). NFCT
`does not dispute this assessment of the level of skill and states that it and
`Dr. Apsel have used this definition in their analyses. PO Resp. 5 (citing
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 24).
`We see no compelling reason to apply a different level of skill than
`that accepted by both parties, and accordingly adopt the level of skill
`advocated by Petitioner.
`D. Overview of the Prior Art6
`Ritter
`1.
`Ritter, titled “Mobile Device, Chip Card and Method of
`Communication,” relates to a mobile device comprising a removable SIM
`(Subscriber Identity Module) card that stores data, and a wireless interface
`for communicating bidirectionally with an external device. Ex. 1304A, [54],
`[57]. This contactless interface may be inductive. Id. Figure 1 of Ritter is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`6 For consistency with the parties’ briefing, cited page numbers of Exhibits
`1306 and 1308A herein refer to the RFID Handbook’s original page
`numbers, rather than the exhibit-stamped page numbers.
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts SIM card 2, which is inserted into mobile device 1. Id. at 5.
`Mobile device 1 includes antenna 15, which “allows the mobile device to
`exchange data and programs inductively or in an electromagnetic manner
`directly with an external device 3'.” Id. at 7. Antenna 15 may, for example,
`be a coil, and is controlled by communication controller 16. Id.
`Communication controller 16 has communication means to exchange data
`with the chip card (i.e., the SIM card). Id. at 6. External device 3' may
`consist of another mobile device such that data stored on the SIM cards of
`the two mobile devices may be exchanged. Id. at 13.
`Several operating modes are described in Ritter. Id. at 11–13. In one
`mode, communication controller 16 may be “inductively fed by the external
`device 3'.” Id. at 11. In such a case, the external device “can feed the
`communication controller and the antenna 15 in order to read, for example,
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`identification data or electronic keys in the memory area of the
`communication controller.” Id. This mode may be useful, for example, “in
`order to use the mobile device, which is also switched off, as an electronic
`key with a physical access monitoring device.” Id. In another operating
`mode, the communication controller and antenna 15 are “fed by the main
`battery of the mobile device 1.” Id. at 12. Ritter explains that, “[a]s a result,
`the data and the programs can be inductively transmitted over greater
`distances.” Id.
`RFID Handbook
`2.
`Both versions of the RFID Handbook, i.e., RH-E and RH-G, relate to
`automatic identification procedures and technology and have similar
`disclosures. The RFID Handbook explains that although the most common
`form of electronic-data-carrying device in use in everyday life is the smart
`card, the mechanical contact used in the smart card is vulnerable to
`degradation, and a contactless transfer of data between a data-carrying
`device and its reader avoids these disadvantages while providing other
`benefits. Ex. 1306, 1, 4–7; Ex. 1308A, 5, 7–8. One type of contactless ID
`system is a radio-frequency identification (“RFID”) system. Ex. 1306, 6;
`Ex. 1308A, 7. The RFID Handbook explains that RFID systems are made
`up of two components: a transponder, which is located on an object to be
`identified and stores data, and an interrogator or reader, which may be read-
`only or may have read/write capabilities. Ex. 1306, 6–7; Ex. 1308A, 7, 9.
`The transponder includes a coupling element, which may be a coil or
`microwave antenna, and an electronic microchip. Ex. 1306, 8, Fig. 1.6;
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`Ex. 1308A, 9, Fig. 1.6. The power required to activate the transponder,
`which does not usually possess its own voltage supply, is supplied
`contactlessly through the coupling unit, as is the timing pulse and data;
`hence, the transponder is only activated when it is within the interrogation
`zone of a reader. Ex. 1306, 8; Ex. 1308A, 10. The transponder is totally
`passive when not within the interrogation zone of a reader. Ex. 1306, 8;
`Ex. 1308A, 10.
`A transponder is depicted in Figure 1.8 of the RFID Handbook, which
`is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1.8 illustrates the basic layout of two types of transponders,
`including an inductively coupled transponder with an antenna coil on the
`left. Ex. 1306, 9; Ex. 1308A, 10. According to the RFID Handbook, in an
`inductive coupling system, “the reader’s antenna coil generates a strong,
`high frequency electro-magnetic field, which penetrates the cross-section of
`the coil area and the area around the coil,” and “[a] small part of the emitted
`field penetrates the antenna coil of the transponder,” generating “[a]
`voltage . . . in the transponder’s antenna coil by inductance.” Ex. 1306, 35;
`Ex. 1308A, 36. This voltage is rectified and serves as the power supply for a
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`microchip on the transponder. Ex. 1306, 35; Ex. 1308A, 36. Further, “[t]he
`switching on and off of a load resistance at the transponder’s antenna . . .
`effects voltage changes at the reader’s antenna and thus has the effect of an
`amplitude modulation of the antenna voltage by the remote transponder.”
`Ex. 1306, 38; Ex. 1308A, 38. “If the switching on and off of the load
`resistor is controlled by data, then this data can be transferred from the
`transponder to the reader,” and “[t]his type of data transfer is called load
`modulation.” Ex. 1306, 38; Ex. 1308A, 38.
`E. Comparison of Claimed Subject Matter and Prior Art
`The Petition sets forth detailed contentions and supporting evidence to
`show that the combination of Ritter and the RFID Handbook teaches or
`suggests each element of challenged independent claims 13 and 23, as well
`as challenged dependent claims 14, 15, 18–20, 24, and 25. Pet. 23–47.
`Relying on Dr. Mihran’s testimony, NXP contends, inter alia, that a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Ritter to disclose
`transferring data between two CIC readers via inductive coupling, where
`each reader includes an antenna circuit that generates a magnetic field and
`an excitation circuit that delivers an excitation signal to the antenna circuit.
`Id. at 23–27 (citing Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 87–89, 91–93; Ex. 1304A, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11–13,
`15, 17, Figs. 1, 2). In particular, NXP contends, Ritter teaches transferring
`data inductively between mobile device 1 and external device 3', which may
`be another mobile device. Id. (citing Ex. 1304A, 7–8, 11, 13, Fig. 1).
`According to NXP, this transfer is conducted inductively via a coil antenna,
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`which a person of ordinary skill would understand generates a magnetic
`field, in order for external device 3' to read the data stored on the SIM card
`in mobile device 1, rendering both devices CIC readers. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1304A, 7–8, 13, Fig. 1; Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 87–89, 92). Specifically, mobile
`device 1 in Ritter includes antenna 15, which “allows the mobile device to
`exchange data and programs inductively” with external device 3'.
`Ex. 1304A, 7. Ritter further indicates “a coil may be used as an antenna,”
`and describes signals of particular frequencies for transmission via the coil,
`which teach the recited alternating excitation signal. Id. Similarly, the
`RFID Handbook describes an “oscillator” that delivers a “signal of the
`required operating frequency” to an antenna to communicate data
`inductively. Id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 1306, 202; Ex. 1308A, 186).
`Dr. Mihran’s testimony is credible and supports NXP’s argument that the
`above disclosures of Ritter and the RFID Handbook teach the above
`limitations, and that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`combine them because both references describe inductive communication
`via alternating signals of the same or similar frequencies. See Ex. 1303
`¶¶ 87–94.
`NXP further asserts a person of ordinary skill would have understood
`Ritter to teach that the data may be transferred in a binary signal (i.e., a data-
`carrying signal with two states) when data is to be transmitted from the first
`reader to the second reader, with the receiving device receiving the signal by
`inductive coupling and extracting the data from that signal, particularly
`when combined with the RFID Handbook’s teachings of transferring data
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00684
`Patent 7,098,770 B2
`
`inductively using digital load modulation from a CIC r

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket