Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 15
`Date: January 19, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE NOCO COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PILOT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, JULIA HEANEY, and
`STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 15
`Date: January 19, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE NOCO COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PILOT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, JULIA HEANEY, and
`STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`The NOCO Company, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting
`an inter partes review of claims 1–24 in U.S. Patent No. 11,124,077 B2
`(Exhibit 1001, “the ’077 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Pilot, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response.
`In the Institution Decision, we instituted review based on all
`challenged claims and all challenges included in the Petition. Paper 7
`(“Inst. Dec.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We issue this
`Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For
`the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1–24 in the ’077 patent are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e) (2018).
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Pet. 74. Patent
`Owner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Paper 3, 2. The parties
`do not raise any issue about real parties in interest.
`B. Related Matters
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following civil action as a
`related matter involving the ’077 patent: Pilot, Inc. v. The NOCO Company,
`Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00389-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. filed Mar. 14, 2022). Pet. 74;
`Paper 3, 2.
`
`C. The ’077 Patent (Exhibit 1001)
`The ’077 patent, titled “Automobile Charger,” issued on
`September 21, 2021, from an application filed on April 21, 2021. Ex. 1001,
`codes (22), (45), (54). The patent identifies that application as the latest in a
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`series of continuation applications that began with an application filed on
`December 12, 2014. Id. at 1:5–15, code (63). The patent claims priority to
`an application filed in China on April 28, 2014. Id. at 1:14–16. The patent
`states that the disclosure “relates to an automobile charging device,” in
`particular, “a novel automobile charger with a safe power supply charging
`quickly.” Id. at 1:21–23; see id. at code (57).
`The ’077 patent describes problems with conventional automobile
`chargers. See Ex. 1001, 1:24–34. For instance, the patent states that
`“current automobile chargers have common problems” because they cannot
`“automatically detect” the following:
`(1)
`“whether a load is connected”;
`(2)
`“whether an electrode is connected with an automobile
`storage battery reversely”;
`“whether an automobile engine or the storage battery
`has a reverse current”; and
`“whether the battery state is suitable for heavy current
`power generation.”
`Id. at 1:28–34. The patent purports to address those problems with “a novel
`automobile charger with the safe power supply charging quickly.” Id.
`at 1:34–38, 1:42–45; see id. at 2:31–58.
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`
`The ’077 patent’s Figure 1 (reproduced below) depicts a block
`diagram for an automobile charger:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates an automobile charger including the following
`components:
`(1) DC-to-DC module 1;
`(2) microcontroller 2;
`(3)
`battery voltage detection module 3;
`(4)
`automobile start control module 4;
`(5)
`load detection module 5;
`(6)
`load module 6; and
`(7)
`direct current power supply 7.
`Ex. 1001, 2:62–63, 2:66–3:2, 3:15–35, Fig. 1.
`The DC-to-DC module “provides a stable voltage for the
`microcontroller.” Ex. 1001, 2:1–3, 4:13–14. The microcontroller “collects
`relevant data to conduct the corresponding control.” Id. at 2:2–4, 4:14–15.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`The battery voltage detection module “conducts the measurement of” the
`power-supply battery’s voltage and “provides protection” for the power-
`supply battery to “prevent damages caused by the discharging of the direct
`current power supply.” Id. at 2:4–5, 2:16–19, 4:15–17. The automobile start
`control module “conducts the power supply or the power outage for the load
`module” and corresponds to an electronic switch controlled by the
`microcontroller. Id. at 2:5–8, 2:29–30, 4:18–20, 4:42. The load detection
`module “detects whether the load module is correctly connected” and
`“prevents improper operations of the user,” such as “reversed polarity.” Id.
`at 2:8–10, 2:20–22, 2:40–43, 4:20–25. The load module “comprises the
`automobile storage battery and the automobile engine.” Id. at 3:32–34.
`Additionally, the microcontroller “determines whether the automobile
`storage battery is connected with the automobile engine through the load
`detection module.” Ex. 1001, 4:23–25. The automobile start control module
`is “automatically activated and the battery starts to supply power to the load
`module when the load is correctly connected.” Id. at 4:26–28. The
`automobile start control module is “automatically deactivated and the battery
`stops supplying power to the load module when assuming that the load is not
`connected or the positive and negative polarities are reversely connected.”
`Id. at 4:28–32.
`The automobile charger includes a standby mode where “the
`microcontroller closes all outputs when the battery voltage is lower than
`9V.” Ex. 1001, 4:32–34; see id. at 2:23–26. The automobile charger
`“recovers the normal operation only when the battery voltage is larger than
`10V.” Id. at 4:34–35; see id. at 2:23–28.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`
`An automobile engine “will generate the normal voltage to recharge
`the battery after the automobile starts.” Ex. 1001, 4:36–37. But the
`automobile start control module is “deactivated immediately once the
`recharging voltage is larger than the voltage before that battery starts the
`power supply, to protect the battery from damages caused by charging with
`the normal voltage.” Id. at 4:37–41.
`The ’077 patent’s Figure 2 (reproduced below) depicts a circuit
`diagram for an automobile charger:
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates an automobile charger including microcontroller U2 and
`the modules illustrated in Figure 1 except the load module (the automobile
`storage battery and the automobile engine). See Ex. 1001, 2:64–65,
`3:36–4:12, Figs. 1–2.
`As an example, the DC-to-DC module in Figure 2 comprises “a
`diode D1, a resistor R1, capacitor C1, a HT7530 voltage stabilizing tube,
`[and] capacitors C2 and C3.” Ex. 1001, 3:36–38, Fig. 2. As another
`example, the battery voltage detection module in Figure 2 comprises
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`“resistors R2, R13 and capacitor C6.” Id. at 4:7–8, Fig. 2. As yet another
`example, the load detection module in Figure 2 comprises “resistors R9, 10,
`a capacitor C6 and a resistor R13.” Id. at 4:1–2, Fig. 2.
`Additionally, Figure 2 depicts electronic switching circuitry
`comprising a plurality of n-channel transistors identified as Q3_1, Q3_2,
`Q3_3, Q4_1, Q4_2, and Q4_3. Ex. 1001, Fig. 2; see id. at 2:12–14,
`2:29–30, 4:42. Further, Figure 2 shows Q3_1, Q3_2, and Q3_3 connected
`to a negative terminal (V-OUT-) of a depleted battery and Q4_1, Q4_2, and
`Q4_3 connected to a negative terminal (BT-) of a power-supply battery. Id.
`at Fig. 2.
`
`D. The Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges independent apparatus claim 1 and claims 2–24
`that depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Pet. 6, 21–73.
`Claim 1 exemplifies the challenged claims and reads as follows (with
`formatting added for clarity and with bracketed numbers and letters added
`for reference purposes):1
`1. [1p] A jumpstarter comprising:
`[1(a)(i)] a battery connected to a voltage regulator,
`[1(a)(ii)] the battery capable of supplying power, via
`the voltage regulator, to at least a microcontroller,
`[1(a)(iii)] the battery also capable of supplying power
`to an automobile battery when the battery has at least a
`predetermined voltage;
`[1(b)] a load detector circuit, connected to the
`microcontroller, to detect when the jumpstarter is correctly
`connected to the automobile battery;
`
`
`1 We use the same numbers and letters that Petitioner uses to identify the
`claim language. See Pet. 21–29.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`
`[1(c)] the microcontroller generating, when the
`jumpstarter is correctly connected to the automobile battery,
`an output signal; and
`[1(d)] switching circuitry, including at least one switch,
`to operatively connect the battery to the automobile battery
`when the microcontroller generates the output signal to supply
`a charging current to the automobile battery.
`Ex. 1001, 5:11–27.
`
`E. The Asserted References
`For its challenges, Petitioner relies on the following references:
`Name
`Reference
`Exhibit
`Richardson US 2013/0154543 A1, published June 20, 2013
`(based on an application filed February 15, 2013)
`Krieger US 2004/0130298 A1, published July 8, 2004
`(based on an application filed December 10, 2002)
`Baxter US 2010/0173182 A1, published July 8, 2010
`(based on an application filed March 24, 2010)
`Tracey WO 2012/080996 A1, published June 21, 2012
`(based on an application filed December 14, 2011)
`US 8,232,772 B2, issued July 31, 2012
`(based on an application filed May 27, 2008)
`Pet. 6, 21–73.
`Petitioner asserts that each reference qualifies as prior art for the
`’077 patent “under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (AIA).” Pet. 7, 10,
`16–17, 19.
`Patent Owner does not dispute that each reference qualifies as prior
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`Lai
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`art.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`
`F. The Asserted Challenges to Patentability
`Petitioner asserts the following challenges to patentability:
`Claim(s) Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`Reference(s)/Basis
`1–7, 9–11, 18–20
`103
`Krieger
`8
`103
`Krieger, Baxter
`22, 23
`103
`Krieger, Tracey
`1–7, 9–16, 18–21, 24
`103
`Richardson
`17
`103
`Richardson, Lai
`3–7, 19, 20
`103
`Richardson, Krieger
`8
`103
`Richardson, Krieger, Baxter
`22, 23
`103
`Richardson, Tracey
`Pet. 6, 21–73.
`
`G. Testimonial Evidence
`To support its challenges, Petitioner relies on the declaration of
`Jonathan R. Wood, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003). Dr. Wood states, “I have 54 years
`of experience in power electronics and analog circuits, including battery
`systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 5. Dr. Wood also states, “I hold a Ph.D in Electrical
`Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1973), an M.E.
`in Electrical Engineering from the University of Auckland (1969), and a
`B.E. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Auckland (1968).” Id.
`Patent Owner does not introduce testimonial evidence.
`H. Burden
`In an inter partes review, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion
`to prove “unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” Dynamic
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2023).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`
`I. Order to Show Cause
`The Scheduling Order set April 17, 2023, as the date for Patent Owner
`to file a response to the Petition. Paper 7, 11. The Scheduling Order
`instructed Patent Owner to arrange a conference call with the parties and the
`Board if Patent Owner elected not to file a response to the Petition. Id. at 9.
`Patent Owner did not file a response to the Petition or arrange a
`conference call with the parties and the Board.
`On October 5, 2023, we issued an Order to Show Cause directing
`Patent Owner to “show cause why adverse judgment should not be entered
`against it.” Paper 10, 2.
`On October 20, 2023, Patent Owner responded to the Order to Show
`Cause. Paper 13 (“Order Resp.”). In its response, Patent Owner stated as
`follows:
`
`Patent Owner and Petitioner each maintain open
`applications, and the Board’s analysis of the prior art and
`arguments may be instructive in allowing the USPTO to, in
`the future, examine claims in these pending applications.
`Accordingly, Patent Owner does not request adverse judgment
`against itself. Instead, Patent Owner requests that the Board
`issue a Final Written Decision finding all claims remain valid.
`Id. at 2–3.
`Further, Patent Owner argued that “Petitioner has failed to present
`competent evidence of unpatentability, including failing to present viable
`reasons to read the prior art references as supporting the proffered
`obviousness grounds.” Order Resp. 3. Patent Owner also argued that “there
`is a lack of proof” that the asserted references teach the following limitation
`in claim 1 (limitation 1(b)): “a load detector circuit, connected to the
`microcontroller, to detect when the jumpstarter is correctly connected to the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`automobile battery.” Id.; see id. at 3–4. Patent Owner did not dispute that
`the asserted references teach every other limitation in claim 1 and every
`limitation in dependent claims 2–24. Id. at 2–4.
`In response, Petitioner argued that “Patent Owner has effectively
`abandoned the contest in this IPR proceeding by electing not to file a
`response to the Petition and by failing to abide by the instructions of the
`Scheduling Order to arrange a conference call with the parties and the Board
`if electing not to file a response.” Paper 14, 2. Petitioner also argued as
`follows:
`
`Should the Board deem it appropriate to proceed to a
`final written decision, despite the Patent Owner’s purposeful
`failure to comply with the Scheduling Order, the substantive
`arguments included in the Patent Owner’s Response to Order
`to Show Cause should be wholly disregarded. Patent Owner’s
`inclusion of a substantive response to the Petition in its
`Response to Order to Show Cause is yet another attempt to
`sidestep the rules of this tribunal and the Board’s Scheduling
`Order. Patent Owner’s substantive arguments are clearly
`untimely, and should therefore be disregarded by the Board
`in preparing its final written decision.
`Id. at 2–3.
`Having considered the parties’ respective arguments as to whether
`adverse judgment should be entered against Patent Owner under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.73(b) based on an abandonment of the contest by Patent Owner, we
`have decided not to enter adverse judgment against Patent Owner. In light
`of Patent Owner’s statement regarding the Petition’s merits and Patent
`Owner’s statement that it does not request adverse judgment, we do not view
`Patent Owner’s actions as an abandonment of the contest. See Apple Inc. v.
`Zipit Wireless, Inc., IPR2021-01124, Paper 14 (Dec. 21, 2022) (vacating
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`entry of adverse judgment after determining that it was not sufficiently clear
`that the patent owner intended to abandon the contest) (precedential); Order
`Resp. 2–4.
`
`III. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`A. Legal Principles: Obviousness
`A patent may not be obtained “if the differences between the claimed
`invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole
`would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
`invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed
`invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. An obviousness analysis involves
`underlying factual inquiries including (1) the scope and content of the prior
`art; (2) differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; (3) the
`level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, objective indicia
`of nonobviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved
`needs, and failure of others.2 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`17−18, 35–36 (1966); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034,
`1047–48 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc). When evaluating a combination of
`references, an obviousness analysis should address “whether there was an
`apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by
`the patent at issue.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`We analyze the obviousness issues according to these principles.
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art
`include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems
`
`2 The record does not include evidence or argument regarding objective
`indicia of nonobviousness.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the
`rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the
`technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field.
`Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir.
`1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or
`other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not
`exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in
`the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level.
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the alleged invention would have had “at least a Bachelor’s Degree in a
`relevant engineering discipline such as electrical engineering and at least
`two years of relevant experience in the design and/or development of
`automotive electrical systems, or a Masters or more advanced degree in
`a relevant engineering discipline such as electrical engineering.” Pet. 5.
`Dr. Wood’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertion. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 45.
`We adopt Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan as
`consistent with the ’077 patent and the asserted prior art.
`C. Claim Construction
`We construe claim terms “using the same claim construction
`standard” that district courts use to construe claim terms in civil actions
`under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard,
`claim terms “are given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the
`meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention.” Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`Int’l, Inc., 904 F.3d 965, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). The meaning of claim
`terms may be determined by “look[ing] principally to the intrinsic evidence
`of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and
`the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
`Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips,
`415 F.3d at 1312–17).
`Petitioner does not propose an explicit construction for any claim
`term. See, e.g., Pet. 7.
`Patent Owner does not propose an explicit construction for any claim
`term. See Order Resp. 2–4.
`“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor
`Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017
`(Fed. Cir. 2017). We determine that no claim term requires an explicit
`construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “preponderance of
`the evidence” standard for proving unpatentability.
`D. Alleged Obviousness over Krieger: Claims 1–7, 9–11, and 18–20
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–7, 9–11, and 18–20 are unpatentable
`under § 103 as obvious over Krieger. See Pet. 6, 21–39. Below, we provide
`an overview of Krieger. Then, we consider the obviousness issues. For the
`reasons explained below, we agree with Petitioner that claims 1–7, 9–11,
`and 18–20 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Krieger.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`
`1. OVERVIEW OF KRIEGER (EXHIBIT 1005)
`Krieger is a U.S. patent application publication titled “Microprocessor
`Controlled Booster Apparatus with Polarity Protection,” filed on
`December 10, 2002, and published on July 8, 2004. Ex. 1005, codes (12),
`(22), (43), (54). Krieger states that the invention relates “to a booster
`device used for boosting a depleted battery,” and more particularly “to
`microprocessor control of the booster apparatus and a polarity protection
`circuit.” Id. ¶ 2; see id. at code (57). The polarity-protection circuit
`prevents current flow to a depleted battery “unless proper polarity is
`achieved.” Id. ¶ 10, code (57); see id. ¶ 29.
`Krieger describes problems with conventional booster devices. See
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–9. For example, Krieger explains that connecting a boosting
`battery’s terminals to a depleted battery’s terminals “can be very dangerous
`if the batteries are connected incorrectly.” Id. ¶ 5. A “large current passes
`through the electric wires” even when “the two batteries are connected
`correctly.” Id. But when “the two batteries are connected erroneously, a
`current which passes through the electric wires is 10 to 20 times larger than
`the current existing on the electric wires when the batteries are correctly
`connected.” Id. Further, an “incorrect connection may result in one or both
`of the batteries being short-circuited,” and “in some cases, an explosion, fire
`and damage to the vehicle or to a person may result.” Id.
`To address those issues, Krieger discloses a booster device that “can
`be used to ensure that the connection of the two batteries is made correctly
`and in a safe manner.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 10.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`
`Krieger’s Figure 1 (reproduced below) depicts a booster device
`including a polarity-protection circuit:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a booster device including boosting battery 2 with
`positive terminal 4 and negative terminal 6, switch 12 comprising field-
`effect transistors 12a–12d, and polarity-sensing circuit (opto-isolator) 16
`coupled to boosting battery 2 and depleted battery 11. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 22,
`28–31, Fig. 1.
`“The positive terminal 4 of the boosting battery 2 is coupled to one of
`a pair of alligator clamps 8, 10 to be connected to” depleted battery 11 “via a
`wire or battery cable.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 28, Fig. 1. “The negative terminal 6 of
`the boosting battery 2 is connected to the other of the alligator clamps 8, 10
`to be connected to” depleted battery 11 “via a wire or battery cable.” Id.
`¶ 28, Fig. 1.
`Switch 12 is “activated to complete a boosting circuit between the
`boosting battery 2 and the depleted battery 11” by polarity-sensing circuit
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`(opto-isolator) 16 “only when a correct polarity connection between the
`batteries is attained.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 29, 31. Polarity-sensing circuit (opto-
`isolator) 16 “senses the polarity of the connection between the boosting
`battery 2 and the depleted battery 11 and provides a signal indicating the
`state of the connection” to switch 12. Id. ¶ 31.
`Preferably, switch 12 is “a solid state device, such as a transistor,
`diode, field effect transistor (FET), etc.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 30. Figure 1 depicts
`switch 12 as “a number [of] FETs 12a–12d connected in parallel with each
`other.” Id. ¶ 30, Fig. 1.
`Polarity-sensing circuit (opto-isolator) 16 includes phototransistor 22
`and light emitting diode (LED) 26. Ex. 1005 ¶ 32, Fig. 1. “The opto-
`isolator 16 only turns on when it is properly biased as a result of a correct
`polarity connection being made between the boosting battery 2 and the
`depleted battery 11.” Id. ¶ 33.
`Krieger’s Figure 5 (reproduced below) depicts a microprocessor-
`controlled jump-starter system:
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`Figure 5 illustrates a jump-starter system including boosting battery 2 with
`positive terminal 4 and negative terminal 6, switch 12 comprising field-
`effect transistors 12a–12d, opto-isolator 16, microprocessor 60, display 64,
`and voltage regulator 70. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 26, 28, 43–46, Fig. 5.
`Microprocessor 60 may “perform essentially all of the control
`functions needed for operation of the jump starter.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 43. With
`“a feedback circuit or other means,” microprocessor 60 may monitor (1) “the
`voltage and/or current being supplied to the depleted battery 11 from the
`booster battery 2” and (2) “the voltage and/or current of the battery 11.” Id.
`¶ 44. By doing so, microprocessor 60 may detect “short circuits or other
`faults.” Id. “A resistive divider may be used to provide the voltage and
`current measurements to the microprocessor’s A/D input.” Id. Further,
`microprocessor 60 receives a “low voltage power supply,” e.g., 5 volts, from
`boosting battery 2 via voltage regulator 70. Id. ¶ 46, Fig. 5.
`Voltage regulator 70 is “coupled to the boosting battery 2 and the
`depleted battery 11 for detecting their charge levels.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 52, Fig. 5.
`Voltage regulator 70 “produces a voltage proportional to the voltage of the
`boosting battery 2.” Id. ¶ 53. Microprocessor 60 detects “when the voltage
`of the boosting battery 2 falls below a predetermined level, for example,
`about 80% of its rated value.” Id. Voltage regulator 70 also “produces a
`voltage proportional to the voltage of the depleted battery 11.” Id. ¶ 54.
`Microprocessor 60 “receives this signal from” voltage regulator 70 and
`“determines and displays the voltage of the depleted battery 11 on
`display 64.” Id.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`
`2. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
`
`(a)
`
`Preamble
`Claim 1 recites “[a] jumpstarter.” Ex. 1001, 5:11.
`Petitioner contends that Krieger teaches claim 1’s preamble because
`Krieger discloses a microprocessor-controlled jump-starter system and
`Krieger’s Figure 5 depicts that system. Pet. 21 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 43).
`Generally, a preamble does not limit a claim. Allen Eng’g Corp. v.
`Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We need not
`decide whether claim 1’s preamble limits the claim because we agree with
`Petitioner that Krieger teaches claim 1’s preamble. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 49, 74. Specifically, Krieger discloses a microprocessor-controlled jump-
`starter system. Ex. 1005 ¶ 43, Fig. 5; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49, 74. Krieger
`explains that the microprocessor may “perform essentially all of the control
`functions needed for operation of the jump starter.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 43; see
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 50.
`(b) Limitation 1(a)(i)
`Claim 1 recites “a battery connected to a voltage regulator.”
`Ex. 1001, 5:12 (limitation 1(a)(i)).
`Petitioner contends that Krieger teaches limitation 1(a)(i) because
`Krieger’s microprocessor-controlled jump-starter system includes voltage
`regulator 70 coupled to boosting battery 2 through resistor 62. Pet. 22
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 52, Fig. 5).
`For the reasons stated by Petitioner and supported by Dr. Wood’s
`testimony, we agree with Petitioner that Krieger teaches limitation 1(a)(i).
`See Pet. 22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 75.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`(c) Limitation 1(a)(ii)
`Claim 1 recites “the battery capable of supplying power, via the
`voltage regulator, to at least a microcontroller.” Ex. 1001, 5:12–14
`(limitation 1(a)(ii)).
`Petitioner contends that Krieger teaches limitation 1(a)(ii) because the
`voltage regulator in Krieger’s microprocessor-controlled jump-starter system
`supplies the microprocessor with a “low voltage power supply (e.g., 5 volts)
`from battery 2.” Pet. 22–23 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 46,
`Fig. 5).
`For the reasons stated by Petitioner and supported by Dr. Wood’s
`testimony, we agree with Petitioner that Krieger teaches limitation 1(a)(ii).
`See Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1003 ¶ 76.
`(d) Limitation 1(a)(iii)
`Claim 1 recites “the battery also capable of supplying power to an
`automobile battery when the battery has at least a predetermined voltage.”
`Ex. 1001, 5:14–16 (limitation 1(a)(iii)).
`Petitioner contends that Krieger teaches limitation 1(a)(iii) because
`the boosting battery in Krieger’s microprocessor-controlled jump-starter
`system is “coupled to a pair of alligator clamps 8, 10 to be connected to” an
`automobile battery requiring charging. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 28,
`Fig. 5). Petitioner also contends that Krieger discloses:
`(1) monitoring the boosting battery “to detect when the
`battery falls below a predetermined voltage needed
`for supplying power to” the automobile battery; and
`notifying the operator when the boosting battery
`“is low and needs to be recharged,” e.g., when the
`microprocessor detects that “the boosting battery
`
`(2)
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`
`has fallen below ‘a predetermined level, for example,
`about 80% of its rated value.’”
`Id. at 24 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 53) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 44).
`According to Petitioner, “the boosting battery is ‘capable’ of
`supplying power to an automobile battery when the [boosting] battery has
`at least a predetermined voltage, i.e., the boosting battery is above the
`‘predetermined level.’” Pet. 24 (emphasis omitted).
`For the reasons stated by Petitioner and supported by Dr. Wood’s
`testimony, we agree with Petitioner that Krieger teaches limitation 1(a)(iii).
`See Pet. 23–25; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–80.
`(e) Limitation 1(b)
`Claim 1 recites “a load detector circuit, connected to the
`microcontroller, to detect when the jumpstarter is correctly connected
`to the automobile battery.” Ex. 1001, 5:17–19 (limitation 1(b)).
`Petitioner contends that Krieger teaches limitation 1(b) because
`Krieger’s microprocessor-controlled jump-starter system includes “a
`feedback circuit or other means” for permitting the microprocessor to
`monitor “the voltage and/or current” of the automobile battery (load).
`Pet. 26 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 44). Petitioner contends that Krieger discloses
`using “[a] resistive divider” to “provide the voltage and current
`measurements to the microprocessor’s A/D input.” Id. (alteration by
`Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 44).
`Petitioner also contends that the microprocessor uses “the monitored
`voltage and/or current” to (1) detect that the jumpstarter “is connected” to
`the automobile battery (load) and (2) detect that the positive and negative
`
`21
`
`
`
`(2)
`
`(4)
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`polarities of the automobile battery (load) “are not reversely connected.”
`Pet. 26. As support, Petitioner identifies Krieger’s disclosures as follows:
`(1) microprocessor 60 controls switch 12 to “supply power
`from the boosting battery 2 to the depleted automobile
`battery 11”;
`if “the polarity connections of clamps 8, 10 to the
`depleted battery 11 are not correct, the switch 12
`remains off”;
`(3) microprocessor 60 may “detect if clamps 8, 10 are
`connected to a battery or have been disconnected”;
`if “no battery is present, the switch 12 is placed in a
`non-conducting state”; and
`if “a battery is present, the jump starting process
`continues.”
`Id. at 26–27 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 47–48) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 56).
`Further, Petitioner asserts that detecting “when the jumpstarter is
`correctly connected to the automobile battery” according to limitation 1(b)
`involves (1) detecting that the jumpstarter “is connected” to the automobile
`battery (load) and (2) detecting that the positive and negative polarities of
`the automobile battery (load) “are not reversely connected.” See Pet. 25–26.
`Patent Owner disputes that Krieger teaches limitation 1(b). See Order
`Resp. 3–4. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that “the ‘load detector
`circuit’ of Kreiger [sic] cannot properly be found to meet the claimed
`‘feedback circuit’ of” the ’077 patent. Id. at 3. Patent Owner asserts that
`“[a] ‘feedback circuit’ is commonly understood by artisans as a circuit that
`supplies some portion of the circuit output back to the input of the involved
`system.” Id. Patent Owner also asserts that Krieger’s circuit “measures
`
`(5)
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01237
`Patent 11,124,077 B2
`
`electrical load being drawn from a power source” and “has nothing to do
`with supplying some portion of its output to the involved system.” Id.
`We agree with Petitioner that Krieger teaches limitation 1(b). See
`Pet. 25–27; E
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
