Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 6
`
`Entered: November 27, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NXP USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMPINJ, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 6
`
`Entered: November 27, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NXP USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMPINJ, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`A. Background
`
` INTRODUCTION
`
`NXP USA, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition, Paper 1 (“Pet.” or
`
`“Petition”), to institute an inter partes review of claims 1 and 8–14 (the
`
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,952,792 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’792
`
`patent”). Impinj, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response.
`
`An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon
`
`consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine that
`
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we
`
`institute an inter partes review.
`
`B. Real Party in Interest
`
`Petitioner identifies NXP USA, Inc., NXP Semiconductors N.V., NXP
`
`B.V., and Freescale Semiconductor Holdings V, Inc. as the real parties in
`
`interest. Pet. 85. Patent Owner identifies itself as the only real party in
`
`interest. Paper 4, 2.
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`
`According to Patent Owner, the ’792 patent is the subject of the
`
`following action: Impinj, Inc. v. NXP USA, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`
`(N.D. Cal) filed June 6, 2019. Paper 4, 2. The parties acknowledge that
`
`Petitioner has filed another petition (IPR2020-00974) challenging U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,349,090, which is subject to a terminal disclaimer tied to the
`
`’792 patent. Pet. 85; see also Paper 4, 4.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`Patent Owner also identifies IPR petitions Petitioner has filed against
`
`other patents at issue in the district court action. Paper 4, 3–4. The
`
`following table identifies these inter partes review case numbers and their
`
`respective patent numbers:
`
`Case No.
`IPR2020-00514
`IPR2020-00516
`IPR2020-00519
`IPR2020-00543
`IPR2020-00544
`IPR2020-00552
`IPR2020-00553
`IPR2020-00554
`IPR2020-00556
`IPR2020-00589
`IPR2020-01062
`IPR2020-01063
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`9,471,816 (“the ’816 patent”)
`9,633,302 (“the ’302 patent”)
`8,115,597 (“the ’597 patent”)
`9,495,631 (“the ’631 patent”)
`8,344,857 (“the ’857 patent”)
`8,600,298 (“the ’298 patent”)
`the ’298 patent
`9,031,504 (“the ’504 patent”)
`the ’504 patent
`10,002,266 (“the ’266 patent”)
`8,134,451 (“the ’451 patent”)
`8,390,431 (“the ’431 patent”)
`
`See Paper 4, 3–4.
`
`D. The ’792 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`The ’792 patent relates to Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”)
`
`systems that use a RFID reader to interrogate a RFID tag attached to an
`
`object. Ex. 1001, 1:13–17. In a RFID system, a RFID reader may transmit
`
`an interrogating RF wave. Id. at 1:23–24, 3:21–23, Fig. 1. A RFID tag in
`
`the vicinity may sense the RF wave and respond by transmitting back
`
`another RF wave that the RFID reader may then sense and interpret. Id. at
`
`3:23–25, Fig. 1.
`
`A RFID tag may include an energy storage device (e.g., a battery) and
`
`thus be an active RFID tag. Id. at 1:30–32. Alternatively, a RFID tag may
`
`lack an energy-storage device and instead rely on energy extracted from the
`
`RF wave, although temporary energy-storage elements (e.g., capacitors and
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`inductors) may be used by such passive RFID tags. Id. at 1:32–36. The
`
`’792 patent recognizes, however, that “the efficiency of the RF power
`
`transfer from the reader to the passive tag's IC directly affects the
`
`operational range of the RFID system.” Id. at 1:37–39. According to the
`
`’792 patent, the source, or antenna, impedance should be the complex
`
`conjugate of the load, or integrated circuit (“IC”), impedance so as much of
`
`the RF power incident on the antenna is transferred to the integrated circuit.
`
`Id. at 1:46–49. However, antenna impedance may vary with environmental
`
`conditions and the impedance of the integrated circuit may vary with the
`
`latter’s processing. Id. at 1:49–52. The ’792 states that a RFID tag may
`
`include a matching network to match the antenna impedance to impedance
`
`of the integrated circuit. Id. at 1:40–43, 6:52–54. However, “[t]ypical
`
`matching networks use components with static values, and therefore can
`
`only maximize power transfer and extraction for particular values of antenna
`
`and IC impedance.” Id. at 7:11–13.
`
`The ’792 patent states that “there is a need for ways to tune the IC
`
`input impedance to be the complex conjugate of the antenna source
`
`impedance under varying conditions” and describes embodiments of a
`
`tuning circuit that adjusts a variable impedance to improve the impedance
`
`match between the integrated circuit and the antenna of a RFID tag. Id. at
`
`1:59–61, 2:4–10.
`
`Figure 4 of the ’792 patent is reproduced below.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 4, above, depicts a block diagram that shows a detail of a RFID
`
`electrical circuit 424, or integrated circuit 424. Id. at 3:50–51, 5:1–4.
`
`Circuit 424 includes at least two antenna terminals 432 and 433, section 435
`
`that may include a group of nodes for the proper routing of signals, rectifier
`
`power management unit 441 for extracting RF power received via antenna
`
`terminals 432 and 433, demodulator 442, processing block 444, modulator
`
`446, and memory 450 that stores data 452. Id. at 5:9–24, 5:33–55.
`
`Figure 7 of the ’792 patent is reproduced below.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 7, above, depicts a RFID tag front-end equivalent circuit 700 that
`
`includes tuning circuit 720. Id. at 7:33–34. The ’792 patent explains that if
`
`there is an impedance mismatch between antenna 708 and integrated circuit
`
`710, turning circuit 720 can adjust variable impedance 722 to compensate.
`
`Id. at 7:41–43. Variable impedance 722 may include “one or more variable
`
`capacitor(s), variable inductor(s), variable-length transmission line(s),
`
`variable resistors, etc.” Id. at 7:48–52. However, “[a]ny of th[o]se elements
`
`can be continuously variable or discretely variable (i.e., switched)” and
`
`therefore variable impedance 722 may include one or more switched
`
`capacitors, switched inductors, switched transmission lines, and/or switched
`
`resistors. Id. at 7:52–56.
`
`The ’792 patent explains that tuning circuit 720 may operate at a RF
`
`power level that is lower than what is needed to operate the rest of an
`
`integrated circuit for a RFID tag. Id. at 7:61–63. Figure 8 of the ’792 patent
`
`is reproduced below.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 8, above, is a chart 800 depicting the power extracted (in black, 814)
`
`by an integrated circuit of a RFID during a tag tuning process and the power
`
`lost (in gray, 812). Id. at 8:11–14. The integrated circuit requires a
`
`minimum amount of extracted power to operate, which is depicted by
`
`“sufficient power to operate IC” 804. Id. at 8:21–24. However, the tuning
`
`circuit requires a smaller amount of extracted power, which is depicted by
`
`“sufficient power to tune” 806. Id. at 8:24–27. Much of incident power 802
`
`may be lost before tuning and thus extracted power before tuning 808 may
`
`be less than the sufficient power to operate the IC 804. Id. at 8:27–33.
`
`However, extracted power before tuning 808 may meet the sufficient power
`
`to tune 806 requirement and tuning circuit 720 would have sufficient power
`
`to adjust variable impedance 722 to improve impedance matching. Id. at
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`8:33–39. As a result, extracted power after tuning 810 is sufficient to meet
`
`the sufficient power to operate the IC 804. Id. at 8:39–43.
`
`Figure 9 of the ’792 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 9, above, shows a “RFID tag front-end equivalent circuit 900 [that]
`
`include[s] a tuning circuit and a memory for storing tuning data.” Id. at
`
`8:52–54. Specifically, circuit 900 includes tuning circuit 720 having
`
`additional nonvolatile memory 922 that is coupled to processing block 924.
`
`Id. at 8:55–57. The nonvolatile memory 922 may store data about power
`
`extracted and/or reflected by the RFID tag, such as “previous values of
`
`extracted and/or reflected power for use in an iterative tag-tuning process,
`
`where successively detected values of extracted/reflected power are used to
`
`evaluate the effect of variable-impedance adjustments.” Id. at 9:7–12.
`
`Figure 10 of the ’792 patent is reproduced below.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 10 depicts a detailed view of a RFID tag front-end equivalent circuit
`
`1000 that includes tuning circuit 720 having power detector 1026 that
`
`detects an amount of power extracted by the integrated circuit from an
`
`antenna (not shown in Figure 10). Id. at 9:32–41. Tuning controller 1030
`
`may adjust variable impedance 722 to improve an impedance match and
`
`comparator 1028 may determine whether the extracted power is increasing
`
`or decreasing as tuning controller 1030 adjusts variable impedance 722. Id.
`
`at 9:44–50.
`
`E. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1 and 8–14 of the ’792 patent. Pet. 1.
`
`Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Independent claims 1 and 10 are similar
`
`apparatus claims for a RFID tag and RFID integrated circuit, respectively.
`
`Claim 1 recites “an antenna,” “a variable impedance,” and “an integrated
`
`circuit (IC)” whereas claim 10 recites a RFID “integrated circuit (IC)” that
`
`includes “a variable impedance.” See Ex. 1001, 12:43–62, 13:22–38. Claim
`
`1 is generally illustrative.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`[1-preamble] A Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag,
`comprising:
`
`[1(a)] an antenna;
`
`[1(b)] a variable impedance; and
`
`[1(c)] an integrated circuit (IC) including a tuning circuit
`coupled to the variable impedance,
`
`[1(d)] the IC requiring a sufficient power to operate according
`to a protocol (SPOI), the tuning circuit requiring a
`sufficient power to tune the variable impedance (SPTT),
`the SPOI greater than the SPTT,
`
`[1(e)] wherein the IC is configured to: extract, before tuning the
`variable impedance, a first power from an RF wave
`incident on the antenna greater than the SPTT but less
`than the SPOI;
`
`[1(f)] tune the variable impedance to increase an efficiency of
`power extraction;
`
`[1(g)] extract, after tuning the variable impedance, a second
`power from the RF wave incident on the antenna greater
`than the SPOI; and
`
`[1(h)] operate according to the protocol after tuning the variable
`impedance.
`
`Id. at 12:43–62 (numbering and formatting designated by Petitioner; see Pet.
`
`21–35).
`
`F. Evidence
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following evidence:
`
`(1) U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0289776 A1,
`
`published November 26, 2009 (“Moore”) (Ex. 1004);
`
`(2) U.S. Patent No. 7,339,491 B2, issued March 4, 2008 (“Duron”)
`
`(Ex. 1009);
`
`(3) Alireza Sharif Bakhtiar et al., An RF Power Harvesting System
`
`with Input-Tuning for Long-Range RFID Tags, Proc. 2010 IEEE Int’l Symp.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`Cirs. & Sys. (2010) (“Bakhtiar”) (Ex. 1005); and
`
`(4) Declaration of Daniel van der Weide, Ph.D (Ex. 1010).
`
`G. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`Reference(s)
`
`1, 8–12, 14
`
`103(a)
`
`Moore
`
`13
`
`103(a)
`
`Moore, Duron
`
`1, 8–14
`
`103(a)
`
`Bakhtiar, Duron
`
`
`
` ANALYSIS
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`
`time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`
`at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17
`
`(1966). “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”
`
`Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
`
`Petitioner describes a person of ordinary skill in the art as a person
`
`having “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or physics and five
`
`years of experience in IC design for RFID (or equivalent degree and
`
`experience).” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 43–44). Patent Owner did not
`
`file a Preliminary Response.
`
`Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears to be
`
`consistent with the subject matter of the ’792 patent. This is supported by
`
`the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide. See Ex. 1010
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`¶¶ 43–44. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill for
`
`purposes of this Decision.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`For petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018, a claim “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 (2019).
`
`The Petition was accorded a filing date of May 22, 2020. Paper 5. Thus, we
`
`apply the claim construction standard as set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Under Phillips, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the specification, the prosecution history, other claims,
`
`and even extrinsic evidence including expert and inventor testimony,
`
`dictionaries, and learned treatises, although extrinsic evidence is less
`
`significant than the intrinsic record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17. Usually,
`
`the specification is dispositive, and “it is the single best guide to the meaning
`
`of a disputed term.” Id. at 1315.
`
`Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then
`
`“only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Nidec Motor
`
`Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (in the context of an inter partes review, applying Vivid
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`Here, Petitioner does not propose a claim term for construction. Pet.
`
`10. Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response to propose a claim
`
`term for construction. For purposes of this Decision and based on this
`
`preliminary record, we determine that no claim term requires express
`
`construction at this stage of the proceeding.
`
`C. Patentability Challenges
`
`Petitioner presents three grounds challenging the patentability of
`
`particular claims of the ’792 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Petitioner
`
`challenges (1) claims 1, 8–12, and 14 based on Moore, (2) claim 13 based on
`
`the combined teachings of Moore and Duron; and (3) claims 1 and 8–14
`
`based on the combined teachings of Bakhtiar and Duron. Pet. 9.
`
`1. Principles of Law
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented 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 the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`
`See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.
`
`The Supreme Court has made clear that we apply “an expansive and
`
`flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415.
`
`Whether a patent claiming the combination of prior art elements would have
`
`been obvious is determined by “whether the improvement is more than the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions.” Id. at 417. Reaching this conclusion, however, “requires more
`
`than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering
`
`each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Labs., Inc.
`
`v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Rather, obviousness
`
`requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of
`
`the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in
`
`the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed
`
`invention.” Id.
`
`2. Relevant Prior Art
`
`a. Moore (Ex. 1004)
`
`Moore is a U.S. Patent Application Publication that published on
`
`November 26, 2009, more than one year before the earliest priority date of
`
`the ’792 patent. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (60); Ex. 1004, code (43). Petitioner
`
`asserts that Moore is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 9.
`
`Moore relates to RFID tags. Ex. 1004 ¶ 4. Figure 1 of Moore is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`Figure 1, above, depicts an embodiment of “RFID tag 102 and associated
`
`interfaces, facilities, markets, and applications.” Id. ¶ 64. Moore explains
`
`
`
`that
`
`an interface between an antenna 108 and an RF network node
`104 may be susceptible to electrostatic discharge (ESD), a
`sudden and momentary electric current that may flow when an
`excess of electric charge finds a path to an object at a different
`electrical potential, such as ground, power, or the like.
`
`Id. For instance, Moore explains, “antenna 108 may be a source of such
`
`accumulate charge, which may lead to electrostatic discharge into the
`
`electronics of a RFID tag 102.” Id. In view of this, Moore discloses that
`
`“there may be an [electrostatic discharge] and impedance matching 110
`
`components as part of a RF and Analog block 302 that reduce the
`
`accumulation of charge.” Id. Moore explains that “[t]he ESD and
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`impedance matching 110 functional block may include multiple switch
`
`elements to connect or disconnect impedance components such as
`
`capacitors, inductors, resisters, and combinations thereof.” Id. ¶ 66. Moore
`
`also explains that the “[t]he setting of these switches may be controlled by
`
`analog or digital circuit configurations” and “[t]he impedance match from
`
`tuning the impedance matching may increase the power level received from
`
`the antenna.” Id.
`
`As shown in Figure 1 above, RF network node 104 may include data
`
`processing and controller 132, which may be configured to perform various
`
`functions, including supporting “a digital adjustment of the impedance
`
`match between the antenna 108 and the circuitry of the RF network node
`
`104.” Id. ¶¶ 101, 170. For example, “[t]he ESD and impedance matching
`
`110 functional block may include multiple switch elements to turn on or
`
`off.” Id. ¶ 170. Moore discloses that the data processing and controller 132
`
`may read a value for a parameter associated with the strength of a received
`
`signal and “send[] a command to adjust the switch settings of the ESD and
`
`impedance matching 110 block.” Id. Moore explains that “[t]his procedure
`
`may continue until a maximum value for the parameter is reached.” Id.
`
`Figure 4 of Moore is reproduced below.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 4, above, is a “flow chart depicting [a] possible scenario for RFID tag
`
`102 receiving and executing a generic command from the reader 140.” Id.
`
`¶ 185. Data read 402 sequence starts by the reader transmitting modulated
`
`carrier 404 to RFID tag 102. Id. Moore explains that “[t]he antenna 108
`
`receives the carrier wave, and power from the carrier wave is rectified and
`
`filtered in the power management 130 block at sequence 408.” Id. In turn,
`
`“[t]he power management block 130 circuitry may sense whether there is
`
`sufficient power to power up 410 circuitry within the RF network node 104”
`
`and “[i]f not, there may be analog circuitry that changes an impedance match
`
`412 between the receiving circuitry and the antenna 108 until sufficient
`
`power levels are achieved.” Id. When power is sufficient, the power
`
`management 130 block powers up circuitry in the RF and analog block 302
`
`and the data processing and controller block 132. Id. Subsequently, there
`
`may be a step 418 in which the data processing and controller block 132
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`executes a routine for impedance matching for adjusting maximum power.
`
`Id. Moore explains that “[o]nce optimum impedance matching has been
`
`achieved, the incoming signal may be demodulated in the RF and analog
`
`block 302.” Id.
`
`b. Duron (Ex. 1009)
`
`Duron is a U.S. Patent that issued on March 4, 2008, more than one
`
`year before the earliest priority date of the ’792 patent. Ex. 1001, codes
`
`(22), (60); Ex. 1009, code (45). Petitioner asserts that Duron is prior art
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 10.
`
`Duron relates to a RFID system with selectable backscatter
`
`parameters and a RFID tag for environments that cause antenna detuning.
`
`Ex. 1009 at 1:6–8, 2:6–8. Duron explains that passive RFID tags “are
`
`powered by a radio frequency carrier wave sent from [a] RFID reader.” Id.
`
`at 1:36–37. However, environmental factors can detune a RFID tag’s
`
`antenna, which shifts the frequency to which the RFID tag is sensitive and
`
`causes power transferred between the RFID tag and the RFID reader to drop.
`
`Id. at 1:58–61, 3:10–17.
`
`Figure 3 of Duron is reproduced below.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 3, above, is a block diagram that includes antenna 210, voltage
`
`rectifier 212, demodulator 214, state machine 218, optional oscillator 215,
`
`memory 220, and impedance adder 222. Id. at 2:38–39, 3:53–61. Duron
`
`states that impedance adder 222 is configured to provide a needed amount of
`
`impedance to antenna 210 to compensate for detuning and shift the
`
`frequency of antenna 210 back to a desired resonance frequency. Id. at
`
`2:10–12, 4:66–5:3. Impedance adder 222 can provide an adjustable source
`
`of impedance, such as variable reactive components (e.g., capacitors and
`
`inductors). Id. at 5:7–9, 5:14–18.
`
`Figure 4 of Duron is reproduced below.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 4, above, depicts impedance adder 222 including impedance
`
`tree 402 capable of producing a variable impedance. Id. at 5:19–21.
`
`Impedance tree 402 includes multiple capacitors 404 coupled in parallel to
`
`antenna 210 and switches 406 to provide an impedance to compensate for
`
`detuning effects. Id. at 5:21–24. Duron further describes sources of
`
`impedance information and the use of a memory 220:
`
`The proper amount of impedance to add via the impedance tree
`402 can be received at the RFID tag 104, from the RFID reader
`102 or other device, as a string of bits, a binary number, a code
`or some other indication of the setting for the binary impedance
`tree 402. These bits can be stored at a bit memory 408 and
`indicate which switches 406 should be in the on or off position.
`Bit memory 408 can be part of memory 220 or a separate
`memory structure. In one exemplary embodiment, a default
`setting of the switches for the impedance tree 402 is stored in the
`bit memory 408 or other memory such as memory 220. The
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`RFID tag 104 can then be calibrated to provide the proper
`impedance for the environment and/or packing with which the
`RFID tag 104 is associated with and the new setting for the RFID
`tag 104 can be saved in memory 220.
`
`Id. at 5:41–55.
`
`c. Bakhtiar (Ex. 1005)
`
`Bakhtiar is an article titled “An RF Power Harvesting System with
`
`Input-Tuning for Long-Range RFID Tags.” Ex. 1005, 1. Petitioner asserts
`
`that “Bakhtiar is prior art under at least [pre-AIA] 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), as it
`
`was published and available by as early as May 30, 2010, and no later than
`
`September 28, 2010.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 4–11). 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a) states that “[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless—(1) the
`
`claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in
`
`public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention.”
`
`We note for the record that the filing date of the ’792 patent is January
`
`6, 2012. Ex. 1001. The ’792 patent, however, “claims the benefit of U.S.
`
`Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/430,949 filed on Jan. 7, 2011.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:6–7.
`
`Petitioner provides a declaration from Marcia P. Garcia, an
`
`Intellectual Property Research Librarian at the law firm of Jones Day in
`
`support of Petitioner’s assertion that Bakhtiar qualifies as prior art under
`
`Section 102(a). Ex. 1011. Ms. Garcia states that Bakhtiar would have been
`
`available to attendees of the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on
`
`Circuits and Systems conference between May 30 to June 2, 2010. Id. ¶ 5.
`
`Ms. Garcia also states that Bakhtiar “would have been locatable and
`
`available to the public [via] search in the IEEE Xplore Digital Library as of
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`August 3, 2010.” Id. ¶ 5 (citing Ex. 1011 Appendices A, B). Ms. Garcia
`
`further states that the print version of the Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE
`
`International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, in which Bakhtiar was
`
`published, “would have been locatable and available to the public by search
`
`in the WorldCat database as of September 22, 2010.” Id. ¶ 6. Ms. Garcia
`
`also states that the electronic version of the Proceedings of 2010 IEEE
`
`International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, in which Bakhtiar was
`
`published, would have been locatable and available to the public by search
`
`in the WorldCat database as of September 28, 2010. Id. ¶ 7. Ms. Garcia
`
`provides further testimony concerning the public availability of Bakhtiar.
`
`See id. ¶¶ 8–11.
`
`Patent Owner has not filed a Preliminary Response contesting any of
`
`Petitioner’s evidence showing the public availability of Bakhtiar or
`
`Bakhtiar’s prior art status to the ’792 patent.
`
`Based upon our review of the preliminary record, Petitioner has
`
`shown sufficiently that Bakhtiar was publicly available as early as May 30,
`
`2010, and no later than September 28, 2010. For purposes of this Decision,
`
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Bakhtiar qualifies as prior art to the
`
`’792 patent under Section 102(a).
`
`Bakhtiar relates to a RF power harvesting system for long-range RFID
`
`tags. Ex. 1005, 4085. Bakhtiar explains that passive RFID tags are a
`
`prominent application of wireless power transmission because passive RFID
`
`tags include a rectifier block that extracts power from a received RF signal
`
`and produces a DC supply for its internal circuits. Id. Bakhtiar, however,
`
`explains that the efficient extraction of a DC voltage from a received RF
`
`signal is a major design challenge for remotely powered systems because
`
`received power rapidly decreases as the distance between a reader and a tag
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`increases. Id. Bakhtiar states that the power consumption of a tag has to be
`
`optimized and/or the efficiency of the rectifier circuit must be improved in
`
`order to increase the distance between a reader and a tag. Id.
`
`Figure 1 of Bakhtiar is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1, above, shows a generic RF power harvesting system that uses an
`
`antenna to receive a RF signal, which is transferred to an on-chip rectifier.
`
`Id. A matching network is generally used to match the impedance of the
`
`antenna to the input impedance of subsequent stages. Id. Bakhtiar further
`
`describes a tuning loop that “automatically adjust[s] the center frequency of
`
`the matching network.” Id. at 4086. According to Bakhtiar, maximum
`
`voltage boosting is achieved when “the center frequency of the matching
`
`network is tuned to that of the input RF signal.” Id. Bakhtiar explains that
`
`this can be accomplished by “measuring the output voltage of the rectifier
`
`and changing the capacitance of the matching network.” Id.
`
`Bakhtiar also explains that “the center frequency of the matching
`
`network can vary” because of “environmental and process variations.” Id. at
`
`4087. Figure 4 of Bakhtiar is reproduced below.
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of Bakhtiar, above, shows a tuning loop, wherein a number
`
`of PMOS transistors are connected in parallel to the input to change the
`
`center frequency. Id. During every clock cycle a counter turns on or turns
`
`off one of the PMOS capacitors, a supply voltage is sampled, and a Schmitt
`
`trigger comparator compares the sample with a supply voltage sample from
`
`half a clock cycle later to determine whether the input capacitance change
`
`resulted in an increase or decrease of the supply voltage. Id. Based on this,
`
`a finite state machine (“FSM”) determines “whether the counter should
`
`count up or down in the next clock cycle to keep the output voltage rising.”
`
`Id.
`
`Bakhtiar also explains that a rectifier may not provide a large voltage
`
`or current at this output at the beginning of this operation because the input
`
`network is not tuned. Id. at 4088. Bakhtiar describes turning on the tuning
`
`loop while the rest of the chip is off. Id. Bakhtiar explains the tuning loop
`
`must be able to operate with a small supply voltage and have a very low
`
`power consumption. Id. During operation, the loop tunes the input
`
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`capacitance for the optimal output voltage and, after a few microseconds that
`
`the loop tunes the input capacitance, the loop can be turned off while the
`
`counter keeps the optimal value of the input capacitance. Id. Bakhtiar states
`
`that the rest of the chip can be turned on once tuning is accomplished. Id.
`
`D. Obviousness Based on Moore (Ground 1a)
`
`Petitioner asserts claims 1, 8–12, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Moore. Pet. 21–46.
`
`1. Independent Claim 1
`a. Preamble
`
`Claim 1 recites the following preamble: “A Radio Frequency
`
`Identification (RFID) tag, comprising.” Ex. 1001, 12:43–44. Petitioner
`
`asserts “Moore’s RFID tag 102 is a ‘Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
`
`tag.’” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 61). Figure 1 of Moore (annotated), shown
`
`below, is a schematic of Moore’s RFID tag system. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1004
`
`¶¶ 4, 64).
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00973
`Patent 8,952,792 B1
`
`Figure 1 of Moore (annotated), above, shows Moore’s RFID tag 102,
`
`antenna 108, and ESD and impedance matching components 110, among
`
`other things. Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, ¶ 64.
`
`Patent Owner did not file a preliminary response contesting
`
`Petitioner’s arguments or evidence. Petitioner’s arguments are supported by
`
`the cited evidence. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 61. The issue of whether the preamble is
`
`limiting need not be resolved at this stage of the proceeding because,
`
`regardless of whether the preamble is limiting, Petitioner shows sufficiently
`
`for purposes of institution that the recitation in the preamble is satisfied by
`
`the prior art.
`
`b. an antenna
`
`Petitioner asserts “Moore’s antenna 108” teaches this limitation. Pet.
`
`21 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 62; see also Fig. 1). Petitioner asserts Moore’s
`
`antenna 108 “receives a carrier wave from reader 140.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex.
`
`1004 ¶ 83).
`
`Patent Owner did not file a preliminary response contesting
`
`Petitioner’s arguments or evidence with respect to this claim limitation.
`
`Petitioner’s arguments are supported by the cited evidence.
`
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, provides credible testimonial
`
`evidence that Moore’s antenna 108 is a RFID antenna. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 62.
`
`
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
