BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OSSIA INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`ENERGOUS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2016-00023
`Patent 9,124,125
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF STEPHEN B. HEPPE IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 9,124,125
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ossia, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`PGR2016-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. Qualifications ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`II. Level of Skill in the Art ...................................................................................... 5
`
`III. My Understanding of Claim Construction ...................................................... 8
`
`IV. My Understanding of Anticipation .................................................................. 9
`
`V. My Understanding of Obviousness ..................................................................... 9
`
`VI. Overview of ‘125 Patent ................................................................................ 11
`
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 15
`
`A. “a selective range for charging or powering the electronic device” ............. 16
`
`B. “spots,” “a predetermined variety of spots” and “predetermined areas or
`
`regions in 3-D space” ........................................................................................... 20
`
`C. “pockets of energy”A .................................................................................... 22
`
`D. “pocket forming” ........................................................................................... 23
`
`E. “null-spaces” .................................................................................................. 24
`
`F. “unified waveform” ....................................................................................... 24
`
`G. “short RF control signals” ............................................................................. 25
`
`VIII. Overview of References ................................................................................ 25
`
`A. Lu ................................................................................................................... 25
`
`B. Won ................................................................................................................ 28
`
`C. Landis ............................................................................................................. 29
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`D. Cordeiro ......................................................................................................... 31
`
`E. Perkins ........................................................................................................... 33
`
`IX. Grounds of Challenge .................................................................................... 33
`
`A. Ground 1: Lu and Won with respect to claims 4-7, 10-13, 15, 17, and 18 ... 34
`
`1. Overview .................................................................................................... 34
`
`2. Claim 4 in view of Lu and Won ................................................................. 35
`
`3. Claim 5 in view of Lu and Won ................................................................. 51
`
`4. Claim 6 in view of Lu and Won ................................................................. 53
`
`5. Claim 7 in view of Lu and Won ................................................................. 55
`
`6. Claim 10 in view of Lu and Won ............................................................... 60
`
`7. Claim 11 in view of Lu and Won ............................................................... 66
`
`8. Claim 12 in view of Lu and Won ............................................................... 66
`
`9. Claim 13 in view of Lu and Won ............................................................... 68
`
`10. Claim 15 in view of Lu and Won ........................................................... 74
`
`11. Claim 17 in view of Lu and Won ........................................................... 74
`
`12. Claim 18 in view of Lu and Won ........................................................... 75
`
`B. Ground 2: The combination of Lu, Won, and Landis w.r.t. claims 1-3 and 9
`
`
`
`77
`
`1. Overview .................................................................................................... 77
`
`2. Claim 1 in view of Lu, Won, and Landis ................................................... 78
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`3. Claim 2 in view of Lu, Won, and Landis ................................................... 85
`
`4. Claim 3 in view of Lu, Won, and Landis ................................................... 86
`
`5. Claim 9 in view of Lu, Won, and Landis ................................................... 87
`
`B. Ground 3: Lu, Won, and Perkins with respect to claim 14 ........................... 89
`
`1. Claim 14 in view of Lu, Won, and Perkins ................................................ 89
`
`C. Ground 4: The combination of Landis, Cordeiro, and Won w.r.t. claims 1-7,
`
`9-15, 17, and 18 .................................................................................................... 91
`
`1. Overview .................................................................................................... 91
`
`2. Claim 1 in view of Landis in view of Cordeiro in view of Won ............... 93
`
`3. Claim 2 in view of Landis in view of Cordeiro in view of Won .............105
`
`4. Claim 3 in view of Landis in view of Cordeiro in view of Won .............106
`
`5. Claim 4 in view of Landis in view of Cordeiro in view of Won .............107
`
`6. Claim 5 in view of Landis in view of Cordeiro in view of Won .............109
`
`7. Claim 6 in view of Landis in view of Cordeiro in view of Won .............111
`
`8. Claim 7 in view of Landis in view of Cordeiro in view of Won .............113
`
`9. Claim 9 in view of Landis in view of Cordeiro in view of Won .............118
`
`13. Claim 10 in view of Landis, Cordeiro, and Won .................................119
`
`14. Claim 11 in view of Landis in view of Cordeiro in further view of Won
`
`
`
`125
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`15. Claim 12 in view of Landis in view of Cordeiro in further view of Won
`
`
`
`126
`
`16. Claim 13 in view of Landis in view of Cordeiro and Won ..................127
`
`17. Claim 15 in view of Landis in view of Cordeiro in view of Won ........132
`
`18. Claim 17 in view of Landis in view of Cordeiro in view of Won ........132
`
`19. Claim 18 in view of Landis in view of Cordeiro in view of Won ........133
`
`D. Ground 5: Landis, Cordeiro, Won, and Perkins with respect to claim 14 ..136
`
`1. Claim 14 in view of Landis, Cordeiro, Won, and Perkins .......................136
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`I, Stephen B. Heppe, a resident of Hood River, Oregon, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Ossia Inc. (“Ossia”) to provide
`
`declaratory evidence in post-grant review of U.S. Patent 9,124,125 (the “‘125
`
`patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the specification and the claims
`
`of the ‘125 patent. I will cite to the specification using the following format: (‘125
`
`patent, 1:1-10). This example citation points to the ‘125 patent specification at
`
`column 1, lines 1-10.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the following documents and
`
`materials:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125 (Ex. 1001);
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0326660 to Lu et al.
`
`(“Lu”) (Ex. 1003);
`
` U.S. Patent 9,059,599 to Won et al. (“Won”) (Ex. 1004);
`
` U.S. Patent 6,967,462 to Landis (“Landis”) (Ex. 1005);
`
` U.S. Patent 8,457,656 to Perkins et al. (“Perkins”) (Ex. 1006);
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0292090 to Cordeiro et al.
`
`(“Cordeiro”) (Ex. 1007);
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0008993 to Leabman (Ex.
`
`1008);
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
` Prosecution File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125 (Ex. 1009);
`
` U.S. Patent 3,434,678 to Brown et al. (“Brown”) (Ex. 1011); and
`
` The additional documents cited herein.
`
`4.
`
`To the best of my knowledge, the exhibits cited in this declaration –
`
`including Exhibits 1001 to 1009 – are true and accurate copies of what they
`
`purport to be, and that an expert in the field would reasonably rely on them to
`
`formulate opinions as those set forth in this declaration.
`
`5.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue and the state of the art at the
`
`time the application leading to the ‘125 patent was filed.
`
`6.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights,
`
`and opinions regarding the above-noted references. All opinions rendered herein
`
`are provided from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art even when
`
`not explicitly stated or when phrases that suggest personal opinion are otherwise
`
`used. For example, the phrase “in my opinion, X means Y” should be read as “a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that X means Y.” Further, all
`
`opinions are provided as of or before the earliest filing date of the ‘125 patent of
`
`June 25, 2013 whether explicitly stated or not.
`
`7.
`
`The headings and sub-headings in this Declaration are provided for
`
`the convenience of the reader, and are for reference purposes only.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`I.
`
`Qualifications
`8. My academic and professional pursuits are closely related to the
`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`
`subject matter of the ‘125 patent.
`
`9.
`
`I obtained a Bachelor’s of Science degree in electrical engineering and
`
`computer science at Princeton University in 1977, a Master’s of Science degree in
`
`electrical engineering (specializing
`
`in communications) from The George
`
`Washington University (GWU) in 1982, and a Doctor of Science in electrical
`
`engineering (specializing in communications, with minors in operations research
`
`and electrophysics) in 1989. I have worked in the fields of radio communication,
`
`antenna beamforming and null-steering, direction-finding, computer and network
`
`communications, packet radio, and ad hoc packet radio networking since 1977. My
`
`doctoral dissertation focused on direction-finding using a phased-array antenna,
`
`with beamforming and null-steering using subarrays to enhance the direction-
`
`finding accuracy of the system while reducing computational load.
`
`10. My first job after college, at General Electric Space Division, focused
`
`on the RF communications and command and data handling system for the Nimbus
`
`G weather satellite. RF communications took place at S-band (2.2-2.3 GHz).
`
`11. While working at Stanford Telecommunications, Inc., I participated in
`
`the performance analysis of (and development of operating strategies for) the
`
`beamforming and null-steering antenna arrays used on the DSCS III spacecraft.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`These included two 19-element transmit arrays and one 61-element receive array.
`
`Frequency bands of operation ranged from 7.25 GHz to 8.4 GHz. I also led a team
`
`investigating various satellite communication options for the FAA, for aeronautical
`
`air/ground communications, which included consideration of L-band phased-array
`
`antennas on the spacecraft (i.e., operating roughly at 1.6 GHz), as well as
`
`beamforming at the ground stations in order to minimize spacecraft cost.
`
`12. More recently, while serving at Insitu, Inc., as Chief Engineer, VP,
`
`and ultimately Chief Scientist, I was the architect of the air/ground radio
`
`communication system which employed orthogonal polarization diversity and
`
`frequency diversity for downlink video at 2.4 GHz, as well as command and
`
`control (using a single antenna) at 900 MHz and 1.3 GHz.
`
`13. My Curriculum Vitae, submitted as Exhibit 1010, contains further
`
`details on my education, experience, publications, and other qualifications to
`
`render an expert opinion. I am being compensated at my standard rate of $300/hour
`
`for my work related to this post-grant review proceeding. My compensation is not
`
`dependent on and in no way affects the substance of my statements in this
`
`Declaration.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`
`II. Level of Skill in the Art
`14.
`I have been asked to consider the level of ordinary skill in the art that
`
`someone would have had at the time the claimed invention was made. In deciding
`
`the level of ordinary skill, I considered the following:
`
`field;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the levels of education and experience of persons working in the
`
`the types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
`the sophistication of the technology.
`
`15. The ‘125 patent addresses at least the following technical and
`
`mathematical domains which I will refer to as a “basic toolkit” for a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention: a) antenna design
`
`for frequencies between 900 MHz and 5.8 GHz; b) radio-frequency (“RF”)
`
`propagation; c) constructive and destructive interference of multiple RF signals at
`
`the same frequency; and d) mathematics sufficient to handle the optimization of
`
`multiple complex values, representing the RF signals generated at the various
`
`antenna elements described in the ‘125 patent (i.e., complex numbers represented
`
`as X + iY, or equivalently, Aeiθ), subject to optimization constraints such as “power
`
`desired in direction A; but no power desired in direction B”.
`
`16. The fundamentals of RF propagation, constructive and destructive
`
`interference, and antenna behavior, such as the concept of resonance and the
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`radiation pattern for simple antennas such as “whips” (dipoles), are generally
`
`introduced at the undergraduate level in electrical engineering and physics
`
`curricula. However, adaptive antenna beamforming and null-steering, which lies at
`
`the heart of the ‘125 patent, is generally not addressed until the Master’s level in
`
`electrical engineering and physics degree programs specializing in RF propagation
`
`and radio communication. Adaptive beamforming and null-steering requires the
`
`adjustment of amplitude and phase across multiple antenna elements subject to a
`
`set of “constraints” intended to maximize signal strength in certain directions while
`
`minimizing signal strength in other directions. Even a theoretical and simplified
`
`treatment, focusing on “open-loop” operation where beams and nulls are to be
`
`formed in known directions with a theoretically perfect array, requires familiarity
`
`with complex numbers and matrix manipulation, as well as multi-dimensional
`
`optimization techniques, in addition to the general familiarity with RF propagation
`
`and constructive/destructive interference between RF signals at arbitrary points in
`
`space relative to the points at which the signals were created. In my experience, the
`
`academic training in all these areas, necessary to setup and solve a problem
`
`involving adaptive beamforming and null-steering, is only completed at the
`
`Master’s level. One to two years of practical experience is also beneficial, in order
`
`to learn the subtleties of antenna design and interaction with other nearby
`
`structures (including other antennas or antenna elements), and understand the
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`issues involved in characterizing a real-world antenna. Therefore, in my opinion,
`
`the minimum level of skill in the area of the ‘125 patent would be a Master’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering or physics, specializing in antennas or RF
`
`propagation, with one or two years of practical experience in the analysis or design
`
`of phased-array antennas. Additional academic training could substitute for
`
`practical experience, and additional practical experience (augmented with self-
`
`study) could substitute for formal academic training.
`
`17. For so-called “closed-loop” systems, where a target device is tracked
`
`and the antenna is controlled to steer a beam in the direction of the target,
`
`additional issues come into play. In order to actually “track” a target with a multi-
`
`element or phased-array antenna – ascertain its location in three-dimensional
`
`space, or even its azimuth and elevation angle (ignoring distance) -- the tracking
`
`system must analyze the phase and amplitude of RF signals incident on the array
`
`and calculate at least the azimuth and elevation of the target. This also requires
`
`familiarity with complex analysis and matrix manipulation, and requires
`
`characterization of the array as well as a consideration of the operating
`
`environment. Different techniques are available for closed-loop tracking and
`
`beamforming/null-steering systems that employ two-way interactions with a target
`
`(e.g., such as a traditional radar) versus one-way systems where a pilot signal
`
`generated by the target is used to ascertain location (or direction), and thereby
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`command a separate beamforming and null-steering system that places a beam in
`
`the desired direction while minimizing RF energy in other directions.
`
`18. Systems for target tracking and direction-finding are an academic area
`
`and engineering discipline in their own right; however, they rely on the same
`
`mathematical foundation as needed for dynamic beamforming and null-steering.
`
`Therefore, I have not assessed any additional training needed for this aspect of the
`
`problem.
`
`19. Based on these considerations, it is my opinion that, at the earliest
`
`filing date of the ‘125 patent, which I understand to be June 25, 2013, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have a Master’s degree in electrical engineering or
`
`physics, specializing in antennas or RF propagation, with one or two years of
`
`practical experience in the analysis or design of phased-array antennas. Additional
`
`academic training could substitute for practical experience, and additional practical
`
`experience (augmented with self-study) could substitute for formal academic
`
`training.
`
`III. My Understanding of Claim Construction
`20.
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ‘125
`
`patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification. It is my further understanding that claim terms are given their
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the earliest filing date of the ‘125 patent, unless the
`
`inventor has set forth a special meaning for a term. I have applied the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning to each of the ‘125 patent claim terms except as noted below in
`
`Section VII.
`
`IV. My Understanding of Anticipation
`21.
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as anticipated if every
`
`element is disclosed in a prior art reference, and is arranged in the same manner as
`
`recited in the claim. The disclosure may be explicit, implicit, or inherent. I
`
`understand that a prior art reference is read from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`V. My Understanding of Obviousness
`22.
`I also understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if the claimed
`
`invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view
`
`of the prior art. This means that even if all of the requirements of the claim cannot
`
`be found in a single prior art reference that would anticipate the claim, the claim
`
`can still be unpatentable.
`
`23. As part of this obviousness inquiry, I have been asked to consider the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art that someone would have had at the time the
`
`claimed invention was made, which I set forth above.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`I understand that an invention is obvious when the differences
`
`24.
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that to prove that a prior art reference or a combination
`
`of prior art references renders a patent claim obvious, it is necessary to (1) identify
`
`the particular references that, singly or in combination, make the patent claim
`
`obvious; (2) specifically identify which elements of the patent claim appear in each
`
`of the asserted references; and (3) explain how the prior art references could have
`
`been combined in order to create the inventions recited in the patent claim.
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that prior art references can be combined under
`
`several different circumstances. For example, it is my understanding that such
`
`circumstances include when a proposed combination of prior art references is
`
`equivalent to the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same
`
`way, or when the prior art references contain an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine them.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that certain objective indicia can be important evidence
`
`regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious. Such indicia include:
`
`commercial success of products covered by the patent claims; a long-felt need for
`
`the invention; failed attempts by others to make the invention; copying of the
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`invention by others in the field; unexpected results achieved by the invention as
`
`compared to the closest prior art; praise of the invention by the infringer or others
`
`in the field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of
`
`surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and
`
`the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. I am not
`
`aware of the existence of any objective indicia of non-obviousness in this case.
`
`VI. Overview of ‘125 Patent
`28. The ‘125 patent, entitled “Wireless Power Transmission With
`
`Selective Range,” is directed to electronic transmitters for wireless power
`
`transmission. It purports to teach systems and methods for creating “pockets of
`
`energy,” surrounded by “null-space,” where the pockets of energy can be used to
`
`power or charge portable electronic devices. It purports to achieve this goal by
`
`“pocket-forming”, which the specification describes as “generating two or more
`
`RF waves which converge in 3-d space, forming controlled constructive and
`
`destructive interference patterns.” (See ‘125 patent at 2:30-32.) The specification
`
`does not provide a precise definition of a “pocket,” but provides several examples
`
`in text and illustration. For example, FIG. 1 reproduced below, and described at
`
`2:59-3:15, illustrates a “pocket of energy” 108 purportedly formed by “controlled
`
`Radio RF waves” 104 which are generated by the transmitter 102. The
`
`specification teaches that the RF waves may be controlled through phase and/or
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`amplitude adjustments. These RF waves converge in 3-d space to form
`
`constructive and destructive interference patterns (pocket-forming). Pockets of
`
`energy can be 3-dimensional in shape, and can be utilized to charge or power e.g.
`
`the laptop computer 110. (See id. at FIG. 1.)
`
`
`
`29. There is very little specific disclosure regarding the details of FIG. 1,
`
`such as the frequency band of operation or the distance between the transmitter and
`
`receiver. However, the maximum range of wireless power transmission 100 is
`
`described as “over hundreds of meters” (See id. at 3:34-37), and claim 11 recites
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`RF frequency bands of generally 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5.7 GHz. A POSITA
`
`would recognize that these frequency bands, with wavelengths ranging from 33 cm
`
`down to 5 cm, are roughly consistent with the apparent dimensions of the
`
`transmitting phased-array antenna of 16 elements (the dashed squares at element
`
`102) and the receiving phased-array antenna of 4 elements (the dashed squares on
`
`the laptop 110) illustrated in FIG. 1. The described frequencies and maximum
`
`range puts the purported “pocket of energy” in the so-called “far field” of the
`
`transmitting antenna, and the full scope of the claims would therefore have to
`
`include “pocket-forming” in the far field with at least frequencies in the range of
`
`900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.7 GHz.
`
`30. FIG. 3 of the ‘125 patent, reproduced below, shows an embodiment of
`
`wireless power transmission with “selective range,” where a plurality of pockets of
`
`energy may be generated along various radii from the transmitter 302. (See id. at
`
`2:21-23; see also id. at 3:46-64.) Specifically, the one or more wireless charging
`
`radii 304 (indicated by the crosshatched concentric annular regions) are surrounded
`
`by one or more radii of null-space 306 (indicated by white space).
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`
`
`
`31. FIG. 4 of the ‘125 patent (reproduced below) shows another
`
`embodiment of wireless power transmission with “selective range.” Specifically,
`
`FIG. 4 of appears to show a plurality of “wireless charging spots” 404, and the
`
`specification purports to teach that pockets of energy 108 (as in FIG. 1) may be
`
`generated in these wireless charging spots 404. (See id. at 4:9-11.) These “pockets
`
`of energy”, as well as the “pocket of energy” in FIG. 1, appear to be constrained in
`
`range, as well as laterally (and vertically, in the case of FIG. 1), to create a
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`“pocket” (although the claims of the ‘125 patent certainly does not require a
`
`perfectly spherical pocket or “bubble” as illustrated in FIG. 1).
`
`
`
`VII. Claim Construction
`32. As stated above, I understand that, during a post-grant review, claims
`
`are to be given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification
`
`as it would be read by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`A.
`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`“a selective range for charging or powering the electronic device”1
`33. This claim phrase appears in independent claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 of the
`
`‘125 patent. A similar phrase, “selective range to power a portable electronic
`
`device,” is used in the preambles of all of the independent claims of the ‘125
`
`patent. The ‘125 patent specification does not define the term “selective range,” or
`
`recite the phrase “selective range for charging or powering the electronic device.”
`
`However, the term “selective range” is used in various instances in the ‘125 patent.
`
`In every instance, the term is described in terms of a result that it enables.
`
`34. The title of the ‘125 patent is “Wireless Power Transmission With
`
`Selective Range,” and FIGs. 3 and 4 are described as illustrating various aspects of
`
`wireless power transmission with selective range. At 1:60-62, the ‘125 patent
`
`provides that “[w]ireless transmission with selective range may be employed for
`
`charging or powering a plurality of electronic devices in a variety of spots into a
`
`variety of ranges . . .”
`
`
`1 It is my opinion that the term “selective range” is a means-plus-function
`
`term that lacks sufficient disclosed structure in the ‘125 specification. However, I
`
`believe I understand the claimed function, and I will use that understanding to
`
`inform my anticipation and obviousness analysis.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`35. Another described result of “selective range” is “increas[ing] control
`
`over devices which receive charge or power.” (‘125 patent, 2:1-3.) Yet another
`
`result is “safety restrictions may be implemented by the use of wireless power
`
`transmission with selective range 300, such safety restrictions may avoid pockets
`
`of energy 108 over areas or zones where energy needs to be avoided.” (‘125 patent,
`
`3:58-64.)
`
`36. FIGs. 3 and 4 of the ‘125 patent depict “wireless power transmission
`
`with selective range.” In FIG. 3, the use of “selective range 300” allows “several
`
`spots of energy [to be] created” at receivers in one or more wireless charging radii
`
`304. (See ‘125 patent at 3:46-58; see also FIG. 3.) In FIG. 4, “selective range 400”
`
`allows “pockets of energy 108” to be generated at receivers located in “wireless
`
`charging spots 404.” (See id. at 3:65-4:6; see also FIG. 4.)
`
`37. Thus, in the ‘125 patent, wireless power transmission with selective
`
`range is wireless power transmission that targets energy to one or more selected
`
`distances where charging is desired. This capability, according to the ‘125 patent,
`
`enables the designation of wireless charging radii and wireless charging spots as
`
`exclusive areas for wireless charging. I have created the figure provided here to
`
`illustrate the proper meaning of “selective range”. In “Case 1”, a region of
`
`constructive interference (“pocket of energy”) is formed at a “selective” or desired
`
`range from a reference point (perhaps the transmitter location, or the wall of a
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`room). The region of constructive interference is illustrated by the cloud of blue;
`
`its center point, which might represent the location of a portable electronic device
`
`in need of power, is indicated by the red dot and corresponds to the peak of the
`
`energy distribution (peak power flux density). The red dot is at a desired or
`
`“selected” range from the reference point indicated in this example by the bottom
`
`of the rectangle (either the transmitter, or some other reference point). In “Case 2”,
`
`the center point of the region of constructive interference has been shifted further
`
`away from the reference point at the bottom of the rectangle. In my opinion, it is
`
`the ability to control the distance at which a “pocket of energy” is formed from a
`
`reference point that embodies the concept of “selective range”. Note that, in
`
`practice, the region of constructive
`
`interference is not precise or hard-
`
`edged, but its general location can be
`
`adjusted or “selected” in order to
`
`align with the location of a portable
`
`electronic device.
`
`
`
`38. The ‘125 patent does not
`
`define the baseline or reference point from which the “selective range” should be
`
`measured. It is convenient to imagine a transmitter (and antenna) at a single
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`
`Case PGR2016-00023 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,124,125
`location which could serve as the reference point for the “selective range” or
`
`distance to a “pocket of energy”; however, this appears to be overly narrow based
`
`on the ‘125 patent. Neither the ‘125 patent specification nor the claims require a
`
`“compact” transmitter and antenna; and in any case, the transmitter electronics and
`
`antenna might be in different locations. Also, the “antenna” can comprise multiple
`
`elements. So there is no “single reference point” for determining “range” or
`
`“distance” in the ‘125 patent. Therefore, in my opinion, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation is that the “selective” range or distance can be varied or “selected”
`
`relative to an arbitrary reference point. This could be the center of an antenna
`
`array associated with the antenna, but any other reference point could serve as
`
`well.
`
`39. Finally, I have considered whether “selective range” could be
`
`interpreted as including both a minimum and a maximum range, rather than a
`
`desired range to the peak of the energy distribution (peak power flux density). This
`
`would allow the term to represent both the size of a pocket as well as its location
`
`relative to a reference point. But the ‘125 patent provides no quantitative metric or
`
`guideline that could be used to specify a minimum and a maximum range. So, in
`
`my opinion, this interpretation would make it difficult to