Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 32
`Entered: June 15, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD., D/B/A GWEE,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: May 19, 2022
`__________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 32
`Entered: June 15, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD., D/B/A GWEE,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: May 19, 2022
`__________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`KARL RENNER, ESQ.
`ANDREW PATRICK, ESQ.
`KIM LEUNG, ESQ.
`KENNETH DARBY, ESQ.
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue, S.W.
`Washington, DC 20024
`(202) 626-6447
`renner@fr.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`TAREK FAHMI, ESQ.
`Ascenda Law Group, P.C.
`2150 N. First Street
`San Jose, CA 95131
`(866) 877-4883
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`JOHN EDMONDS, ESQ.
`Edmonds & Schlather, PLLC
`2501 Saltus Street
`Houston, TX 77003
`(713) 364-5291
`jedmonds@ip-lit.com
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on May 19, 2022,
`commencing at 10:00 a.m. EDT, via videoconference.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`10:00 a.m.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good morning, this is the consolidated hearing
`
`for IPRs 2021-00471, 472 and 473 between Petitioner, Apple, and Patent
`
`Owner, GUI Global Products. I am Judge Medley and with me are Judges
`
`McShane, Ullagaddi. At this time, we'd like the parties to please introduce
`
`counsel for the record beginning with petitioner.
`
`MR. RENNER: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Karl Renner
`
`from Fish & Richardson and I'm joined by Kenneth Darby also from Fish &
`
`Richardson and Andrew Patrick and Kim Leung.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And will you be presenting arguments today,
`
`Mr. Renner?
`
`MR. RENNER: I will, Your Honor. Thank you.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. Okay and for patent owner?
`
`MR. FAHMI: Good morning, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good morning.
`
`MR. FAHMI: This is Tarek Fahmi on behalf of the patent owner.
`
`With me is the lead counsel, Jeffrey (Telephonic interference.)
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Mr. Fahmi, you're breaking up.
`
`MR. FAHMI: Okay, I'll see if there's a problem I can fix.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes, I'm only hearing like every few words that
`
`you're saying.
`
`MR. HAYWOOD: Okay, let me check my settings here.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, we'll go ahead then and I'll just keep
`
`rolling with the introduction. I'd like to remind the parties that this hearing
`
`is open to the public and the resulting transcript will be available to the
`
`public. Each party has 60 minutes total time to present arguments. The
`
`petitioner will proceed first and may reserve some of its argument time to
`
`respond to arguments presented by patent owner. Thereafter, patent owner
`
`will respond to petitioner's presentation and may reserve argument time for
`
`surrebuttal.
`
`The parties are reminded that any responsive argument presented
`
`must respond only to the arguments made by opposing counsel in the
`
`previous presentation. Are there any questions regarding the presentation
`
`order?
`
`MR. RENNER: No, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And petitioner, do you wish to reserve
`
`some of your time to respond?
`
`MR. RENNER: I would. I'd like to reserve 30 minutes, please.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And then patent owner, do you wish to
`
`reserve time to respond?
`
`MR. FAHMI: Yes, please, Your Honor, 20 minutes.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And just to let you know we will take a
`
`brief break following petitioner's initial presentation. Petitioner, when you
`
`are ready, you may proceed.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`
`MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honor. We'll leave the record for
`
`reference instead of showing slides, but if there's anything you'd like me to
`
`show on the screen, please just let me know. I'll direct you, please, to our
`
`demonstratives at slide two, where you'll find a table of contents for them.
`
`In that table of contents, you'll see that we've offered roughly 90 slides
`
`today. We're not planning to walk through those laboriously. We'll instead
`
`be focusing our attention primarily on Issue Number One in the slides,
`
`relating to Issue Number One. That issue, of course, dominated the written
`
`record with nearly half the pages offered by the patent owner's response and
`
`the surreply given to the issue of combined ability. So, getting right to that
`
`if we could, I'd move to slide four please. One moment please.
`
`The primary reference here Gundlach is shown here and one
`
`moment, if I could please, Your Honor, I've got a technical issue on my side.
`
`If I could pause for a second, I've got to get something right here on the
`
`slides. One moment please.
`
`MR. SLAY: Hello? I'm afraid your system's on mute. I'm not sure
`
`if you have a local mute button.
`
`MR. RENNER: It is, Your Honor, sorry about that. We're trying to
`
`get a technical issue resolved on the machine that I've gotten from you. Just
`
`one moment, if I could please.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: If it's helpful, we have the slides. You could
`
`just call out the slides that you are looking at and we can proceed that way.
`
`And you're muted, if you're trying to talk.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`
`MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honor. We're going to go ahead
`
`and go with that as our approach. My apologies for the delay. Okay. Well,
`
`so on slide four, what we have is Gundlach is presented here and some
`
`excerpts from the Cooperstock first declaration. The reason we show this
`
`slide is really just to introduce Your Honors, or reintroduce, you to the
`
`primary reference Gundlach. When doing so, you can see in figure 1 it
`
`shows a host device in the upper left and that's in communication, wireless
`
`communication you can see from the line 108, with what is the housing and
`
`the earpiece of the wireless device 100. There's two different pieces to that
`
`device and that'll become important to what we're talking about as we move
`
`through.
`
`If you look at slide five, please, with me, you'll see other excerpts
`
`from Dr. Cooperstock's first declaration. Here, what we are going to look at,
`
`is that Cooperstock offered its wireless headset in response to a perceived
`
`need, two perceived needs in fact. The first of which was to keep track, and
`
`you can see this quoted in the second highlighted line of the Cooperstock
`
`declaration, keep track of headsets that lack wires. The second was to keep
`
`track of them or to keep them charged and ready for use. The remainder of
`
`that Cooperstock declaration, that is excerpted there from paragraph 26,
`
`speaks of the need for disclosure of an expandable collapsible headset with a
`
`relatively thin shape of headsets to be stored and charged again in a portable
`
`cradle. So, it's seeking to have something that keeps track and allows for
`
`charge and ready use.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`
`Slide six shows us figures 18a and b from Gundlach. Here you see
`
`that cradle that's depicted. The cradle serves both of those noted goals. In
`
`the first instance, it serves the goal of storage. You have opposing lids on
`
`that clamshell case, the top and the bottom of it, they oppose one and other
`
`and they protect that headset. They also keep it in stored capacity. The
`
`second is regarding storage and you can see 1843 is the lead line shown
`
`there to demonstrate that there's a connecting port and that's a connecting
`
`port into which a cable can be plugged to accommodate and AV charge from
`
`a wall or some external power source.
`
`Now we know that the Gundlach it has got recesses in each of its lids
`
`and those accommodate the headset and the bottom of those prevents lateral
`
`movement of that headset when it's inserted into that case, so that it's very
`
`snuggly secured there. And in the sense that it's going to help you when you
`
`integrate what we'll see in Lee, an inductive charge you're going to be able
`
`to maintain the position of that headset within that case so you can maintain
`
`a close proximity of the wires where they need to be for induction.
`
`Turning to Lee, slide seven, we ask ourselves what does Lee bring to
`
`the table? We hope it's been clear from the record that it's focused on
`
`technologies relating to charging of headsets. In particular, Lee it highlights
`
`the benefits of charging headsets inductively and how doing so addresses
`
`problems that it identifies, Lee itself identifies, with solutions like those in
`
`Gundlach that are conductive, wired. To the right, we can see an excerpt
`
`from Lee's disclosure in the background where it speaks to this. After that
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`highlighted text or right in it and after it, we can see Lee identifies
`
`opportunities to address a couple of the issues that it sees or notifies us that
`
`exist with respect to wired or conductive methods of charging. According to
`
`Lee, those includes size issues and increased size that comes with the
`
`components that are necessary for conductive, including the ports that
`
`accommodates the wires. There's failure issues with regard to, for instance,
`
`fatigue and corrosion of elements, particularly when they're put in a setting
`
`as earpieces are in your head, which there is naturally some moisture, and
`
`convenience. There are complexities that are reduced when you move away
`
`from induction and wired solutions.
`
`Now if we look further, slide 10, what we can see is we start talking
`
`here about the combination of the Gundlach and Lee references.
`
`Interestingly, both of them you can see, they share some common attributes.
`
`They both disclose the use, for instance, of charging cases that act as power
`
`adapters no less between the power source and that wired headset. Each one
`
`of them has this. But, as mentioned, Lee proposes to change, that is to
`
`improve, conventional conducting charging of the type found in Gundlach,
`
`with inductive coupling for power transfer that's discussed.
`
`In slide 11, we in the petition, detail exactly how this would work.
`
`Slide 11 shows you, in fact, the picture that comes about of page 13 of the
`
`petition. In the proposed Gundlach combination, it's not an unlikely
`
`combination, it's not surprising to see inductive charging, circuitry of Lee,
`
`that's used instead of the conductive charging components in Gundlach and
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`the base of the Gundlach system or the headset. That is demonstrated
`
`graphically in the picture on the right-hand side that we produce is that Lee's
`
`circuit is actually imposed just from a figurative standpoint on that body
`
`housing of Gundlach, illustrated using Gundlach's figure 2c. Now despite
`
`inferences from Gwee throughout the record otherwise, this proposed
`
`combination importantly it shows you, on the right-hand side there, that
`
`Lee's dual-purpose coils, the coils that it actually uses for the inductive
`
`charging, those are within Gundlach's headset body. Notice that they're not
`
`in the earpiece, for instance, they're in that body itself.
`
`Now if you look at slide 12, please. Beyond what we think is rather
`
`overt directives by Lee to improve the conductivity and the charging that's
`
`found in systems like Gundlach through the integration of inductive
`
`charging, the petition offered four, as they're shown here in this slide,
`
`distinct rationales that would drive a person of ordinary skill to consider, and
`
`actually be moved, to combine that Lee technology into Gundlach. We're
`
`going to address each of those in the forthcoming slides.
`
`Slide 13 starts us down the path of the first of them. Here we show
`
`that a POSITA would pursue the Gundlach Lee combination because in the
`
`first instance, inductive charging was after all known as an alternative to
`
`conductive charging. Now inductive charging isn't new, no one suggests
`
`that it is in this record. It was described more than a century ago. But a
`
`critical date, what's important and we believe this record bears it out, as we'll
`
`talk about, inductive charging was a known alternative as mentioned to this
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`conductive charging. If we look at slide 14, we can see excerpts or just
`
`slight pictures and tables that come right out of the record. It shows 17
`
`different patent references on record that show inductive charging being
`
`used in conjunction with small handheld devices of the type that are at issue
`
`here.
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: Counsel, I'm sorry to interrupt.
`
`MR. RENNER: Yes?
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: This is Judge McShane. Just a quick one on
`
`that, the patent owner argues here that several of the exhibits, I think it's
`
`1070 through 1080, are new and untimely and I can't tell actually, some of
`
`these are so small, I can't tell if they're embedded in there. But, be that as it
`
`may, what do you say about this issue about them being untimely?
`
`MR. RENNER: No, I'm glad you asked that, Your Honor, because
`
`that was an issue that was put into the record in dispute on the patent owner's
`
`surreply. We don't believe that that issue is actually meritorious here. Our
`
`position is that these proceedings as adversarial in nature as they are, they're
`
`proceedings that are designed for parties to raise issues and then parties to
`
`further the contentions as it relates to those issues that there's never been a
`
`question about. We don't believe there's a legitimate question about the
`
`combination that we brought forward. The way that it works, it's inductive
`
`that comes and there have been questions raised thereafter by patent owner
`
`about whether or not inductive charging is something that people of skill
`
`would bring in. We believe it perfectly appropriate in these circumstances
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`and the law, we think, bears out. Responding to that would include a
`
`demonstration not only of an articulated position, but we help the record by
`
`providing evidence to lay the foundation for why we're saying what we're
`
`saying. But we thought that the Lee reference itself, for instance, it
`
`demonstrates that people of skill at the time, they note inductive charging.
`
`We're just further corroborating the evidence in the record. (Simultaneous
`
`speaking.)
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: Right, well I think that's the point. That
`
`initially in the petition you put in some evidence on this point on this issue,
`
`so why didn't you put it all in up front? So, that's just a comment not a
`
`question. Thank you.
`
`MR. RENNER: No, I appreciate it. Just one further comment on
`
`that it's, we believe, always a matter of degree. At what point is enough
`
`enough and we thought we had enough is enough, but since there were
`
`questions that seemed to be lingering, we wanted to make sure that there
`
`wasn't a question on the record. Another idea on that is that, Dr.
`
`Cooperstock put in a supplemental declaration, so these references weren't
`
`put in nakedly, we actually offered them with his explanation. The idea
`
`there was that we would offer him up for deposition, which we did, and
`
`there weren't questions asked about these. There was ample opportunity by
`
`the patent owner if they wanted to explore this and some of the other issues
`
`to have done so, we believe.
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: Okay, thank you.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`
`MR. RENNER: You're quite welcome. Thank you for the question.
`
`I believe we were about to turn from slide 14, a little crowded as it may be,
`
`to slide 15 and speak to one other example of record evidence that
`
`substantiates the same point. This evidence comes from patent owner itself
`
`and basically even the Gwee evidence, we believe it confirms that inductive
`
`charging was a known alternative as can be seen here.
`
`We're looking at the clip here that is from a Wireless Power
`
`Consortium document. If you look at paragraph two on the left hand side in
`
`the introduction of that very document, you can see that the first sentence
`
`references inductive charging. It's talking about the inductive coupling as a
`
`method by which it says efficient, versatile, wireless power can be achieved.
`
`Now when we look at that, I think it's notable to reflect on the fact that it
`
`tells us inductive charging is characterized both as efficient and as versatile.
`
`There's not a debate over this in the mind's eye of the author here and this is
`
`a consortium brought together by industry experts to write this. So they
`
`believe it's efficient, whether or not it's as efficient as anything else or not, it
`
`is efficient in the eyes of this audience, and versatile, convenient.
`
`Now more important that either of those two things is these I don't
`
`believe that's an accident to tell us that inductive coupling is a method by
`
`which efficient, versatile wireless power can be achieved. Not saying might
`
`be or might someday be or could possibly be in a different setting, they're
`
`just saying it can be. It's a confident statement. It tells us there's no room
`
`for doubt, according to the consortium. So, again, the third party here
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`speaking much like all of the patent literature we have on record, to the fact
`
`that this inductive coupling in this setting is really nothing that's
`
`extraordinary.
`
`If we move to slide 16, please. We get to the second rationale that
`
`was offered as early as the petition on combined ability and the POSITA
`
`would pursue, we think, the Gundlach Lee combination because after all,
`
`inductive charging it enhances reliability. This was a topic that was well
`
`discussed in the record pretty amply because as articulated by even Lee,
`
`expressly that is, in the top right clip you can see in the middle of the slide
`
`here, you can see an excerpt from Lee. I'm going to quote from that. I'll
`
`start in the yellow highlighted section. It said wired methods, that would be
`
`the conductive type of Gundlach, now you skip down a line or two lines
`
`actually to the word increase, so wired methods increase the risk of failure
`
`via failure of mechanical components caused by fatigue and corrosion. This
`
`is Lee, this is the secondary reference itself, it's not a third party reference.
`
`It's literally the reference that's being used in the combination. It's telling us
`
`what we all pretty much know, wireless interfaces fail from stress and
`
`fatigue. Exposed contacts degrade from corrosion. These are concepts that
`
`are undeniable really and even Gundlach appreciates the fatigue problem.
`
`Your Honors may recall in the POPR, it was written about that
`
`Gundlach has the ability to put in place an adaptor, figure 9a and b of
`
`Gundlach show a special adapter that can be used to reduce stresses and
`
`fatigues of the type that are being talked about here. Gundlach knew about
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`them, but as you aptly noted in the institution decision, reduce doesn't mean
`
`altogether eliminate. Even when Gundlach is used to "reduce" these, it still
`
`is the case that some fatigue remains because after all, we're still using wires
`
`and ports and things of the like. As such, there are still stresses in the
`
`system, unless you move to a solution like, for instance, the one Lee in
`
`criticizing this and then offering itself a different kind of charging inductive
`
`eliminates those wires and those ports. That's an enhancement to reliability.
`
`If we look at slide 17, we have several other record references that
`
`acknowledge similar improvements when discussing headsets, hearing aids
`
`and the like. In the upper left, you can see Dr. Cooperstock through
`
`reference to the 986, that's the 7,211,986 patent, he's saying as much. That
`
`patent we excepted over on the right hand side as well as two others that he
`
`references. When we look at the highlighted language in that excerpt from
`
`that patent, we can see similar evidence of the same. It says there, exposed
`
`metal contacts on headsets risk contamination that may cause corrosion,
`
`electrical leakage, power loss and the like. These concepts are not, again,
`
`unknown to those of skill and these concepts are, as Lee says, completely
`
`handled through an inductive solution like it offers.
`
`If we move to slide 18, we get to the third rationale that we had
`
`expressed with regard to a POSITA pursuing the Gundlach Lee combination.
`
`Here, this talks about Lee's dual purpose coil being advantageous,
`
`predictable and feasible. Lee offers multiple examples, a whole host of them
`
`in fact when you look through its disclosure, in configurations and circuits
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`for replacing conductive charge designs of the type that are found in
`
`Gundlach.
`
`Some of those have circuits that use two distinct coils. That's just
`
`one of the types of solutions that is made with one being used for producing
`
`sound for a speaker, the other being used for charging. But others, like the
`
`solution that's found in figure 12 here, they have a dual purpose coil where
`
`in the first mode, that single coil operates as a transducer to produce sound
`
`for the speaker and in the second mode, it operates to enable inductive
`
`charge to be communicated. Now this comes with fewer components
`
`because you can imagine if nothing else, there's only one coil not two, but
`
`there is other supporting circuitry as well and those advantages that flow are
`
`simplification and reduced size and weight that are talked about, in fact, in
`
`Lee itself.
`
`If we go to slide 22, we see that Lee wasn't the first to introduce such
`
`a dual purpose coil configuration. This is something Dr. Cooperstock notes,
`
`if you look at the second sentence in his paragraph 24 excerpt here. As the
`
`general idea of being the use of the single conductive charging coil for
`
`multiple purposes was found in none other than the wireless, again, power
`
`consortium standard for inductive charging. This is not a new concept. This
`
`is something people of skill knew was an option, and an option that had
`
`advantages.
`
`Other examples of the same, that is the dual of the multiple purpose
`
`inductive coils, is described in patents that were shown to the right, for
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`instance, and cited also by Cooperstock as corroborating. The point is that
`
`the dual purpose coil configuration was well understood. It was known by
`
`skill to be feasible, predictable and offer some advantages and so its
`
`integration not only was one of the multiple options that was offered by Lee
`
`expressly, the secondary reference, but it's one that actually comes with
`
`additional advantage relative to those others that are offered by Lee as well.
`
`If we look at slide 23, we get to the fourth rationale, that is the fourth
`
`way a POSITA would have been led to pursue Gundlach Lee's combination.
`
`This one relates to Lee's inductive charging configuration. It's promoting of
`
`interoperability between devices. You can see that in Lee itself when you
`
`look at the graphics that are shown here in the upper right. You've got a
`
`charge pad, a case, a speaker, each of which being a different kind of device
`
`with which the wireless headset can interoperate. This is interoperability.
`
`If we look at slide 24, we see this benefit isn't isolated to Lee. It's
`
`not Lee's imagination. We turn back to yet again the Wireless Power
`
`Consortium. We looked at that industry collective (Telephonic
`
`interference.) they tell us that interoperability is also something on their
`
`mind and I'll quote from the highlighted sentence on the right hand side, "for
`
`ease of use and the benefit of both designers and consumers, the Wireless
`
`Power Consortium (WPC), has developed a standard that creates
`
`interoperability." Not they might one day consider it. Not they would think
`
`it's possible maybe. They have created the standard that actually is said by
`
`the consortium itself to create interoperability.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`
`The interoperability we're talking about here is something that would
`
`very much benefit Gundlach. After all, if we look at slide 25, we can see
`
`this is again, a paragraph that is from the Dr. Cooperstock declaration.
`
`Looking at the highlighted language here, and I'm just going to go ahead and
`
`put that in front of us all, "specifically designed it is the conductive mating
`
`contacts as described by Gundlach, would require matching connectors or
`
`special designed cases." Moving further into that highlighted section, the
`
`specific design solution disclosed in Gundlach's figure 9 and this is where
`
`they had an adapter to try to deal with the fatigue that we talked about
`
`earlier, that involves the special adapter that mitigates the risk in mechanical
`
`failure, but it also worsens the headset from an interoperability standpoint.
`
`Without the adapter, Gundlach's headset cannot be charged by the
`
`ubiquitous mini cables.
`
`The point being here, there either done if they, don't if they don't if
`
`you will. Without the adapter, we know that Gundlach benefits from the
`
`improvements of reliability and even interoperability because the wires if
`
`their exposed, even Gundlach sees them as subject to fatigue. With the
`
`adapter, we see the benefits both for the improvement of reliability that
`
`would still remain, remember it only reduces, not eliminates that reliability
`
`issue, but also improvements for interoperability.
`
`Now before or as we wrap up combined ability, I wanted to offer just
`
`a couple more general observations. If we could go to slide six together,
`
`turn to that. I'm going to do the old style paper move here. You'll see the
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`figure here on slide six shows the case in Gundlach of course. Now the
`
`combination here, what I want to note, is the combination here it did not
`
`contemplate a battery in resulting clamshell cradle. That clamshell cradle
`
`here is not the point of the changes that are being made in the combination.
`
`We take that clamshell from Gundlach, figures 18a and b, and we see here
`
`the wireless headset is merely inserted into it in the same way that Gundlach
`
`had inserted the headset in its disclosure. It's worth noting because as you
`
`look at how that's done, you'll notice that that clamshell holds onto that
`
`wireless headset firmly in place. But you'll also note is that case is described
`
`as only optionally having a power supply or battery. I'll read a sentence that
`
`spans pages four and five of Gundlach that makes this point. It says the
`
`case, and this is talking about the figure 18a and b case if you're in
`
`Gundlach, the case may contain a reserve power supply such as a reserve
`
`battery and charging circuitry. That sentence began the case may, it's not
`
`saying that that case has to have one. It's not saying that it needs to have one
`
`and frankly it's not part and parcel to the combination we're bringing
`
`forward.
`
`When looking at the petition, you're going to find nothing bringing
`
`that battery into the combination of the inductive clamshell cradle that we
`
`proposed, rather the combination describes a cradle used for storage and able
`
`to allow charging, certainly facilitate charging through port 1843 by external
`
`storage if, and when, it's plugged in. So the patent owner's suggestion that
`
`the combination cradle has a battery is baseless as are the arguments
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00471 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00472 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00473 (Patent 10,589,320 B1)
`
`disparaging combined ability based on the existence of a battery in the case
`
`itself.
`
`The second point I would make is about efficiency. In the record
`
`you see a lot of efficiency. Patent owner indicates it's well known, they say,
`
`that efficiency differences of roughly 30 percent exist between wired or
`
`conductive charging solutions of the type that are in Gundlach and those that
`
`are of Lee, the inductive type of Lee. Aware of this, the patent owner, they
`
`argue that a POSITA would not modify the Gundlach with Lee. It wouldn't
`
`do that because after all it wouldn't want to suffer that kind of displacement
`
`in efficiency. But the patent owner fails to explain why Lee itself promotes
`
`the replacement of conductive with inductive, if after all, a POSITA would
`
`add, as they submit, be held to the efficiency bit and the concerns over it
`
`from such a replacement. We believe this suggestion is really belied by the
`
`validity's disclosure itself. Lee does very affirmatively indicate that you
`
`should make such a change at a time when inductive was not a new
`
`technology at all, the technology had been in place and it justifies. So, by
`
`talking about problems that conductive charging solutions have, we've talked
`
`about those here today and solutions that are brought forward in the
`
`inductive realm, reliability, fatigue, corrosion, debris, safety, convenience
`
`and interoperability. The list goes on of the different things that are
`
`accomplished when you do bring to bear interoperability. The point being,
`
`people of skill, they were well aware as patent owner puts forth of efficiency
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
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
