Trials@uspto.

gov
571-272-7822

Paper 20
Entered: November 29, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
OSSIA, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
ENERGOUS CORPORATION,
Patent Owner.
____________
Case PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
____________
Before JAMESON LEE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and KERRY BEGLEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Post-Grant Review
37 C.F.R. 42.208

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
Petitioner Ossia, Inc. filed a Petition (Paper 2, Pet.) requesting
post-grant review of claims 17, 915, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent
No. 9,124,125 B2 (Ex. 1001, the 125 patent) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
321(a). Patent Owner Energous Corporation filed a Preliminary Response
(Paper 9, Prelim. Resp.) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 323. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 324 and 37 C.F.R. 42.4(a). Pursuant to
35 U.S.C. 324(a), the Director may not authorize a post-grant review
unless the information presented in the petition filed under section 321,
if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely
than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is
unpatentable. For the reasons that follow, we have decided not to institute
a post-grant review.

I. BACKGROUND
A. The 125 Patent 1
The 125 patent relates to wireless power transmission to charge
electronic devices. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 1441. The 125 patent explains that
a user of electronic devices may have to carry chargers or plug into a wall
power supply to charge an electronic device. Id. at col. 1, ll. 2630. It
further explains that current solutions to the charging problem may include
an inductive pad employing magnetic induction or resonating coils. Id. at
col. 1, ll. 3234. Yet, according to the 125 patent, such a solution still
requires that the electronic device may have to be placed in a specific

The 125 patent also is being challenged in Case PGR2016-00024, and is

the subject of Reexamination Control No. 90/013,793, which has been
stayed. See Paper 18.
2

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
place and thus the device may not be portable while being charged. Id. at
col. 1, ll. 3436. The 125 patent states: [T]here is a need for a wireless
power transmission system where electronic devices may be powered
without requiring extra chargers or plugs, and where the mobility and
portability of electronic devices may not be compromised. Id. at col. 1,
ll. 3841.
In the Summary of the Invention portion of the Specification, the
125 patent states: Transmitters may be employed for sending Radio
frequency (RF) signals to electronic devices which may incorporate
receivers. Such receivers may convert RF signals into suitable electricity for
powering and charging a plurality of electric devices. Id. at col. 1,
ll. 4852. Figure 1 of the 125 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 1 illustrates wireless power transmission by using pocket-forming.

Id. at col. 2, ll. 6465. Regarding Figure 1, the Specification states:
FIG. 1 illustrates wireless power transmission 100 using
pocket-forming. A transmitter 102 may transmit controlled
Radio RF waves 104 which may converge in 3-d space. These
3

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
Radio frequencies (RF) waves may be controlled through phase
and/or relative amplitude adjustments to form constructive and
destructive interference patterns (pocket-forming). Pockets of
energy 108 may be formed at constructive interference patterns
and can be 3-dimensional in shape whereas null-spaces may be
generated at destructive interference patterns. A receiver 106
may then utilize pockets of energy 108 produced by
pocket-forming for charging or powering an electronic device,
for example a laptop computer 110 and thus effectively
providing wireless power transmission.
Id. at col. 2, l. 64col. 3, l. 9.
Figure 2 of the 125 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 2 illustrates how two waveforms generate a unified waveform. Id. at

col. 3, ll. 1619. Regarding Figure 2, the Specification states:
FIG. 2 depicts a wireless power transmission
principle 200, where two waveforms, for example waveform 202
and waveform 204, as depicted in FIG. 2A may result in a unified
waveform 206 as depicted in FIG. 2B.
Such unified
waveform 206 may be generated by constructive and destructive
interference patterns between waveform 202 and waveform 204.

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
As depicted in FIG. 2A, at least two waveforms with
slightly different frequencies such as waveform 202 and
waveform 204 may be generated at 5.7 Gigahertz (GHz) and
5.8 GHz respectively. By changing the phase on one or both
frequencies using suitable techniques such as pocket-forming,
constructive and destructive interferences patterns may result in
unified waveform 206. Unified waveform 206 may describe
pockets of energy 108 and null-spaces along pocket-forming,
such pockets of energy 108 may be available in certain areas
where a constructive interference exists; such areas may include
one or more spots which may move along pocket-forming
trajectory and may be contained into wireless power range 208
X1. Wireless power range 208 X1 may include a minimum range
and a maximum range of wireless power transmission 100, which
may range from a few centimeters to over hundreds of meters.
In addition, unified waveforms 206 may include several
null-spaces, which may be available in certain areas where a
destructive interference exists, such areas may include one or
more null-spaces which may move along pocket-forming
trajectory and may be contained into wireless power range 210
X2. Wireless power range 210 X2 may include a minimum range
and a maximum range of wireless power transmission 100, which
may range from a few centimeters to over hundreds of meters.
Id. at col. 3, ll. 1645.
Figure 3 of the 125 patent is reproduced below.

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
Figure 3 illustrates a selective range resulting from pocket-forming. Id. at
col. 3, ll. 4648. Regarding Figure 3, the Specification states:
FIG. 3 depicts wireless power transmission with selective
range 300, where a transmitter 302 may produce pocket-forming
for a plurality of receivers 308. Transmitter 302 may generate
pocket-forming through wireless power transmission with
selective range 300, which may include one or more wireless
charging radii 304 and one or more radii of null-space 306. A
plurality of electronic devices may be charged or powered in
wireless charging radii 304.
Id. at col. 3, ll. 4653.
Figure 4 of the 125 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 4 illustrates another selective range resulting from pocket-forming.

Id. at col. 3, ll. 6567. Regarding Figure 4, the Specification states:
FIG. 4 depicts wireless power transmission with selective
range 400, where a transmitter 402 may produce pocket-forming
for a plurality of receivers 406. Transmitter 402 may generate
pocket-forming through wireless power transmission with
selective range 400, which may include one or more wireless
charging spots 404. A plurality of electronic devices may be
charged or powered in wireless charging spots 404. Pockets of
energy 108 may be generated over a plurality of receivers 406
regardless [of] the obstacles 408 surrounding them, such effect
may be produced because destructive interference may be
generated in zones or areas where obstacles 408 are present.
6

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
Therefore, pockets of energy 108 may be generated through
constructive interference in wireless charging spots 404.
Location of pockets of energy 108 may be performed by tacking
receivers 406 and by enabling a plurality of communication
protocols by a variety of communication systems such as,
Bluetooth technology, infrared communication, WI-FI, FM radio
among others.
Id. at col. 3, l. 65col. 4, l. 15.

B. Illustrative Claims
Claims 1 and 4 of the 125 patent are reproduced below.
1. A method for wireless power transmission with
selective range to power a portable electronic device,
comprising:
generating pocket-forming RF waves from a transmitter
through an antenna connected to the transmitter;
accumulating pockets of energy in regions of space in the
form of constructive interference patterns of the generated RF
waves;
employing a selective range for charging or powering the
electronic device in a predetermined variety of spots with the
accumulated pockets of energy surrounded by null-spaces
without accumulated pockets of energy; and
implementing an adaptive power focusing to avoid
obstacles interfering with the RF signals between the receiver
and the transmitter for regulating two or more receivers
providing charging or powering of the portable electronic device.
4. A method for wireless power transmission with
selective range to power a portable electronic device,
comprising:
generating pocket-forming RF waves from a transmitter
through an antenna connected to the transmitter;

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
accumulating pockets of energy in regions of space in the
form of constructive interference patterns of the generated RF
waves; and
employing a selective range for charging or powering the
electronic device in a predetermined variety of spots with the
accumulated pockets of energy surrounded by null-spaces
without accumulated pockets of energy,
wherein the null-spaces are generated in the form of
destructive interference patterns of the generated RF waves and
the null-spaces are distributed in predetermined selective zones
around the variety of spots.
C. The Prior Art
Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
U.S. Patent No. 6,967,462 B1, issued Nov. 22, 2005
(Ex. 1005, Landis);
U.S. Patent No. 8,457,656 B2, filed Sept. 23, 2011, issued
June 4, 2013 (Ex. 1006, Perkins);
U.S. Patent No. 9,059,599 B2, filed Apr. 24, 2012, issued
June 16, 2015 (Ex. 1004, Won);
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0326660
A1, published Dec. 27, 2012 (Ex. 1003, Lu); and
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0292090
A1, filed Dec. 9, 2011, published Oct. 2, 2014 (Ex. 1007,
Cordeiro).

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
D. The Asserted Grounds
Petitioner challenges claims 17, 915, 17, and 18 of the 125 patent
on the following grounds:
References

Basis

Claim(s) Challenged

Lu and Won

35 U.S.C. 103

47, 1013, 15, 17,

and 18

Lu, Won, and

Landis

35 U.S.C. 103

13 and 9

Lu, Won, and

Perkins

35 U.S.C. 103

14

Landis, Cordeiro,
and Won

35 U.S.C. 103

17,2 913, 15, 17,

and 18

Landis, Cordeiro,
Won, and Perkins

35 U.S.C. 103

14

E. Claim Interpretation
The Board interprets claims using the broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they]
appear[]. 37 C.F.R. 42.200(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
136 S. Ct. 2131, 214446 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
reasonable interpretation standard). The parties provide proposed
interpretations for various limitations of the claims. See Pet. 49; Prelim.
Resp. 29. As explained below, Petitioners asserted grounds fail because

Petitioner states on page 10 of the Petition that claims 15, 7, 915, 17, and
18 are challenged in this asserted ground, but also lists claim 6 in its
recitation of the ground on page 48 and includes arguments regarding
claim 6 on pages 6263, and does not include any analysis regarding
claim 14 for the asserted ground.
9

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner
asserted. See infra Sections II.B, II.C. We conclude that no claim terms
require interpretation at this time to determine whether to institute a
post-grant review. 3

II. DISCUSSION
A. Eligibility for Post-Grant Review
The 125 patent issued on September 1, 2015, from an application
filed on June 25, 2013. Ex. 1001, [22], [45]. It does not claim the benefit of
any earlier filing date. Under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (Pub. L.
No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), 3(n)(1), 6(f)(2)(A)), a patent is eligible
for post-grant review if it issued from an application that contains or
contained at any time a claim that has an effective filing date on or after
March 16, 2013. The 125 patent is such a patent and thus is available for
post-grant review.
A petition for post-grant review may only be filed not later than the
date that is nine months after the date of the grant of the patent or of the
issuance of a reissue patent, as the case may be. 35 U.S.C. 321(c). The
Petition was filed on May 31, 2016, within nine months of the grant of the
125 patent. Petitioner certifies that the 125 patent is available for

In a concurrently issued decision in Case PGR2016-00024, we interpret

generating pocket-forming RF waves from a transmitter through an antenna
connected to the transmitter in claims 1, 4, and 5 as sufficiently broad to
cover the case of one transmitter generating pocket-forming RF waves
through one antenna connected to the transmitter.
10

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
post-grant review and also that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
requesting post-grant review. Pet. 9.

B. Grounds Based on the Combination of Lu and Won

Petitioner contends that (1) claims 47, 1013, 15, 17, and 18 are
unpatentable over Lu and Won, (2) claims 13 and 9 are unpatentable over
Lu, Won, and Landis, and (3) claim 14 is unpatentable over Lu, Won, and
Perkins, under 35 U.S.C. 103, citing the testimony of Stephen B. Heppe,
D.Sc., as support. Pet. 1248 (citing Ex. 1002). We are not persuaded that
Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that the challenged
claims are unpatentable based on these asserted grounds for the reasons
explained below.

1. Lu
Lu describes a wireless power transmission system using an improved
retro-reflective beamforming scheme. Ex. 1003 11, 48. According to
Lu, power transmission using RF waves has been known for some time, but
a large gap still exists between existing technologies and a practical,
general-purpose and ubiquitous wireless power transmission system due to
various issues, such as efficiency, safety, and cost. Id. 6. [S]patial
beamforming (that is, spatial focusing of electromagnetic radiation) is one
way to improve RF propagation efficiency, but is inadequate for multiple
mobile/portable devices residing in a large area. Id. 7. Likewise,
[t]raditional phased-array beamforming may not be an ideal solution, as it
may fail when the line-of-sight path between the phased-array and the target
device is obstructed by obstacles. Id.

11

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
Figure 1a of Lu is reproduced below.

As shown in Figure 1a, system 100 includes charging panels 104, spatially
distributed within region 110, and each panel has an array of antenna
elements 116 that wirelessly charge target devices 120. Id. 3233.
Target devices 120 transmit pilot signals 118. Id. 34. Charging panels 104
receive the pilot signals and, in coordination with base station 102,
collaboratively radiat[e] wireless power to the devices as a beamformer.
Id. Lu discloses:
In a typical retro-reflective array of antenna elements, the
antenna elements receive a continuous-wave pilot signal from a
target device. Each antenna element analyzes the phase of the
pilot signal, and retransmits a complex conjugate version of the
pilot signal back to the target device. This results in a beam that
is spatially focused onto the origin of the pilot signal, namely the
target device. [The u]nderlying theory of the retro-reflective
technique is the same as that of time-reversal. That is, it takes
advantage of channel reciprocity and acts as a space-time
12

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
matched filter. As a result of channel reciprocity, the waves
retro-reflected by the retro-reflective array are constructive at
the target device and destructive elsewhere.
Id. 40.
Figure 1b of Lu illustrates the improved retro-reflective beamforming
scheme in additional detail, and is reproduced below.

Figure 1b depicts target device 120, obstacle 124, and antenna elements 116,
two of which are active and one of which is inactive. Id. 4143. The
antenna elements of the various charging panels are spatially distributed to
provide sufficient wireless power to target devices within the region, and
configured such that only the elements with line-of-sight paths to the target
device are active to transmit wireless power. Id. 13, 43, Figs. 1b1c. If
an obstacle is between the target device and the antenna element, as shown
in Figures 1b and 1c, the corresponding antenna element will be deactivated.
Id. Obstacles are detected via processing of the pilot signal received from
the target device. Id. Lus system also differs from typical retro-reflective
beamforming techniques in that it uses multiple frequencies, rather than
a continuous-wave signal at a single frequency. Id. 1415, 4547.
According to Lu, the disclosed system exhibits increased RF propagation

13

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
efficiency, is usable in everyday complex environments, and is safe for
human beings. Id. 48.

2. Won
Won describes a system for wirelessly charging multiple mobile
devices within a particular region. Ex. 1004, Abstract. Figure 1 of Won is
reproduced below.

Figure 1 depicts charging base station 100, mobile devices 210, 220, and
230, and two regions surrounding charging base station 100: charging
region A and communication region B. Id. at col. 2, ll. 5964. Charging
region A is a region where energy may be transmitted wirelessly from the
charging base station 100 in a magnetic resonance inducement method and
be charged with the transmitted energy. Communication region B is a
region where magnetic field communication is possible with the charging
14

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
base station 100. Id. at col. 2, l. 65col. 3, l. 3. As shown in Figure 1,
(1) mobile device 210 within charging region A can both receive energy
wirelessly via magnetic resonance inducement and communicate with
charging base station 100 via magnetic field communication, (2) mobile
device 220 within communication region B can only communicate with
charging base station 100 via magnetic field communication, and
(3) mobile device 230 outside the regions cannot be charged wirelessly or
communicate with charging base station 100. Id. at col. 3, ll. 825. In one
embodiment, a mobile device within the charging region may function as an
energy relay. Id. at col. 5, ll. 1525, Fig. 6. In that situation, charging
base station 100 selects an energy relay based on a distance/location of the
mobile devices, for example, by selecting a mobile device within the
charging region to charge another mobile device outside the region. Id. at
col. 5, ll. 3237. Won also discloses the use of multiple charging base
stations, each with its own respective charging and communication regions.
Id. at col. 5, l. 51col. 6, l. 10.

3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

35 U.S.C. 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 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. Petitioner argues that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had a Masters degree in electrical
engineering or physics, with specialty in antennas or RF propagation, with
one or two years of practical experience in the analysis or design of

15

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
phase-array antennas. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 1419). Patent Owner
does not dispute this assessment in its Preliminary Response. Based on the
current record, including our review of the 125 patent and the types of
problems and solutions described in the 125 patent and cited prior art, we
agree with Petitioners assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and
apply it for purposes of this Decision.

4. Analysis
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, and 18 are independent. Petitioner relies on
the combined teachings of Lu and Won as allegedly teaching certain
limitations of each claim. Pet. 1430, 3234, 3642. For example, with
respect to claim 4, Petitioner argues that Lu teaches the steps of generating
pocket-forming RF waves from a transmitter through an antenna connected
to the transmitter, accumulating pockets of energy in regions of space in
the form of constructive interference patterns of the generated RF waves,
and employing a selective range for charging or powering the electronic
device, where null-spaces without accumulated pockets of energy . . . are
generated in the form of destructive interference patterns of the generated
RF waves. Id. at 1522. Petitioner cites Lus teaching of retro-reflective
beamforming where RF wireless beams are generated by antennas in the
charging panels surrounding the target device, as well as Lus description of
tracking movement of the target device and reconfiguring which charging
panels are activated based on the location of the device. Id. at 1518.
According to Petitioner, Lus RF beams are spatially focused to accumulate
onto targets in the form of constructive interference, creating pockets of
energy only at the target and null-spaces elsewhere. Id. at 18, 2122

16

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
(citing Ex. 1003 40 (As a result of channel reciprocity, the waves
retro-reflected by the retro-reflective array are constructive at the target
device and destructive elsewhere.)).
Petitioner relies on Won for the limitations of claim 4 of employing a
selective range for charging or powering an electronic device in a
predetermined variety of spots with the accumulated pockets of energy,
where the null-spaces are distributed in predetermined selective zones
around the variety of spots. Id. at 1922 (arguing that Lu in view of Won
teaches the null-spaces limitation). Petitioner acknowledges that Lu does
not explicitly disclose that the region [110] is a designated exclusive area for
wireless charging, but argues that such functionality is taught by Won. Id.
at 19. Petitioner cites Wons description of wirelessly charging mobile
devices in charging region A for a particular charging base station, and using
multiple charging base stations, each with its own charging region. Id.
at 1922. According to Petitioner, these charging regions constitute a
predetermined variety of spots of accumulated pockets of energy, with
null-spaces present in the areas where the pockets of energy do not form.
Id.
Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to enhance Lus system with Wons teachings because the
modification would have amounted to the use of a known technique to
improve a similar device in the same way. Id. at 14, 21. According to
Petitioner, [a]pplying Wons teachings to Lu allows Lus system to be used
only in a designated exclusive wireless charging area, improving human
safety, a recognized concern of Lu. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 34). Further,
[t]he modification would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in

17

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
the art] since it would require merely configuring Lus system to further
account for a targets location (inside or outside the charging region) in
deciding whether to provide wireless power to the target. Id. Petitioner
cites as support the testimony of Dr. Heppe, whose analysis is substantially
similar to that presented in the Petition. Id.; see Ex. 1002 72, 10708.
The remaining independent claims include limitations similar to those of
claim 4 for which Petitioner relies on Won, and for those limitations,
Petitioner refers to its analysis of claim 4. 4 See Pet. 2230, 3234, 3642.
Having reviewed the arguments of Petitioner and Patent Owner, we
are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of establishing that it is
more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable. A patent

Claims 1, 4, and 5 recite employing a selective range for charging or

powering the electronic device in a predetermined variety of spots with the
accumulated pockets of energy. Claim 7 recites a selective range for
charging or powering the electronic device in a predetermined variety of
spots in regions of space with the accumulated pockets of energy surrounded
by null-spaces without accumulated pockets of energy. Claim 10 recites
accumulat[ing] pockets of energy in predetermined areas or regions in 3-D
space, and hot spots includ[ing] one or more wireless charging radii and
one or more null-space radii. Claim 13 recites accumulat[ing] pockets of
energy in predetermined areas or regions in 3-D space. Claim 18 recites
accumulat[ing] pockets of energy in predetermined areas or regions in 3-D
space, and a preselected range for charging hot spots and null-space
spots. We recognize that in certain places in the Petition, Petitioner
contends that Lu, Lu or Lu/Won, or Lu in combination with Won
teaches the limitations. See, e.g., Pet. 22, 24, 2830, 32, 3637, 39.
Petitioners asserted grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103, however, are premised
on multi-reference combinations of at least Lu and Won, and Petitioner
relies on its analysis of claim 4 for the substantially identical limitations of
each of the remaining independent claims. See id. at 910, 22, 24, 2830,
32, 3637, 39. Thus, although the analysis herein is directed primarily to
claim 4, it applies equally to the other independent claims.
18

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
claim is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its
elements was, independently, known in the prior art. KSR Intl Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Rather, obviousness requires the
additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention
would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal
course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.
Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
For an obviousness analysis, it can be important to identify a reason that
would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does. KSR,
550 U.S. at 418. Although the KSR test is flexible, the Board must still be
careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any
explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce
the claimed invention. Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Further, an assertion of obviousness
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
We are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lu and Won as asserted by
Petitioner. First, as Patent Owner points out, the systems described in Lu
and Won deliver wireless power to devices in substantially different ways.
See Prelim. Resp. 2023. Lu discloses a far-field, RF-based retro-reflective
beamforming system where a set of antennas propagate RF waves through
space that constructively interfere at the target device. Ex. 1003 3943.

19

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
Wons system does not perform beamforming or utilize constructive
interference patterns of RF waves. Instead, it uses near-field magnetic
resonance inducement. Ex. 1004, col. 2, l. 65col. 3, l. 25. Patent Owner
explains the differences between the two as follows:
Lu uses an RF antenna and an AC-to-DC converter to harvest
power from electromagnetic waves. In contrast, Won induces a
resonant magnetic field (flux) on a coil of a mobile device and
converts that flux into an electric current to charge a battery. In
an RF-based system, the electrical component of the
electromagnetic field induces a current in the receiver antenna
not a coil. Unlike an RF-based system that communicates by
propagating a plane wave in free space, magnetic inductance
relies on setting up a time-varying magnetic field around the
transmitting coil. When a second coil is introduced into that
time-varying magnetic field, the time-varying magnetic flux
density is incident on that coil, inducing a voltage on its
windings. That modulated voltage can be connected to a storage
device, e.g., a battery, to store energy. In Wons magnetic
induction system, a charging base station creates a near-field
charging region where time-varying magnetic field energy is
transmitted from a coil, thereby inducing a voltage on a coil of a
mobile device within the charging region.
Prelim. Resp. 2122 (citations omitted). Patent Owners explanation is
supported by the disclosure of Won as well as Landis, which describes the
functionality of magnetic induction systems.5 See Ex. 1004, col. 2, l. 65
col. 3, l. 25; Ex. 1005, col. 1, l. 65col. 2, l. 12. Given these fundamental
5

In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner also cites the testimony of

Michael Caloyannides, Ph.D., originally submitted in Reexamination
Control No. 90/013,793. Prelim. Resp. 1923 (citing Ex. 2018 3240,
6579). Patent Owners arguments are persuasive regardless of the cited
testimony, for the reasons stated herein. Thus, we need not assess what
weight to give Dr. Caloyannidess testimony (if any) or view any genuine
issue of material fact created by that testimony in the light most favorable to
Petitioner. See 37 C.F.R. 42.208(c).
20

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
differences in how the two systems wirelessly deliver power, we are not
persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered
applying the technique of Won to the system of Lu, or even viewed the two
systems as compatible with each other. See Prelim. Resp. 2022.
Second, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art
considering Lu would have looked to a reference like Won because Lu
expressly disparages magnetic induction systems of the type described in
Won due to the feature that Petitioner proposes incorporating from Won.
See id. at 2021; WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1337 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (Whether a skilled artisan would be motivated to make a
combination includes whether he would select particular references in order
to combine their elements.). Lu states that its disclosed embodiments
provide at least some improvements over prior wireless power transmission
techniques, including . . . near-field coupling. Ex. 1003 35. According to
Lu, [n]ear-field coupling techniques (including inductive coupling) may
employ a coil as the charger to disperse electromagnetic fields in all
directions. If the target devices locations are unknown, the coil must
generate strong fields to cover the entire region, which may in turn cause
over-illumination to nearby humans and objects. Id. 36 (emphasis
added). Lu contrasts such inductive coupling systems with its disclosed
system, which is based on propagating electromagnetic waves (that is,
far-field) and may achieve high power transmission efficiency and
simultaneously ensure human safety. Id. Lu thus suggests that near-field
inductive coupling systems, like the one disclosed in Won, are inferior
because they over-illuminat[e] an entire predetermined region. See id.
Petitioner acknowledges that Lus region 110 is not a designated exclusive

21

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
area for wireless charging, and proposes applying Wons charging of
particular charging regions to Lus systemthe very feature that Lu
disparages in inductive coupling systems. See Pet. 1921. We are not
persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered
combining Lus teachings with those of Won, as Petitioner contends.
Petitioner has not provided sufficient reasoning or explanation for the
proposed combination of Lu and Won. Accordingly, Petitioner has not
demonstrated that it is more likely than not that (1) claims 47, 1013, 15,
17, and 18 are unpatentable over Lu and Won, (2) claims 13 and 9 are
unpatentable over Lu, Won, and Landis, or (3) claim 14 is unpatentable over
Lu, Won, and Perkins, under 35 U.S.C. 103.

C. Grounds Based on the Combination of Landis, Cordeiro, and Won

Petitioner contends that (1) claims 17, 913, 15, 17, and 18 are
unpatentable over Landis, Cordeiro, and Won, and (2) claim 14 is
unpatentable over Landis, Cordeiro, Won, and Perkins, under 35 U.S.C.
103, citing the testimony of Dr. Heppe as support. Pet. 4879 (citing
Ex. 1002). We are not persuaded that Petitioner has established that it is
more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
these asserted grounds for the reasons explained below.

1. Landis
Landis describes a wireless charging system where [m]icrowave
energy is focused by a power transmitter comprising one or more
adaptively-phased microwave array emitters onto a device to be charged,
and [r]ectennas [rectifying antennas] within the device to be charged

22

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
receive and rectify the microwave energy and use it for battery charging
and/or for primary power. Ex. 1005, Abstract. Figure 1A of Landis is
reproduced below.

Figure 1A depicts electrical/electronic device 102, adaptive-phased array

microwave emitters 106ac disposed on walls 104ab and ceiling 104c, and
backscatter detectors 112ac. Id. at col. 4, ll. 1030. Electrical/electronic
device 102 transmits pilot beams 110ac (locator signal), which are received
by the arrays and allow the system to determine the location of the device in
the room [b]y analyzing timing characteristics of the received signal (e.g.,
by triangulation). Id. at col. 2, ll. 5765, col. 4, ll. 1417. The arrays emit
continuous-wave microwave energy with varying phase across the array
surface in order to effectively focus a respective beam 108a, 108b, 108c of
microwave energy directly at the electrical/electronic device 102. Id. at
col. 4, ll. 1722. Rectennas in electrical/electronic device 102 convert the
23

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
received microwave energy to charging or operating power for the device.
Id. at col. 4, ll. 2226. Backscatter detectors 112ac detect microwave
energy reflected off of any obstacle (e.g., a human) that might enter the
beam path. Id. at col. 4, ll. 2630. When that occurs, the respective array
can be turned off, allowing the device to be powered via the remaining
arrays. Id. at col. 4, ll. 3141.

2. Cordeiro
Cordeiro describes a system for implementing wireless power
transfer using 60 GHz millimeter wave (mmWave) communication.
Ex. 1007 2. Cordeiro utilizes beamforming for wireless communications
from a power source to a powered device, which the reference describes as
follows:
Those of skill in the art recognize that the term
beamforming refers to a class of well-known signal processing
techniques used in certain antenna arrays for manipulating
directional signal transmission or reception. One technique is to
combine elements in the particular antenna array in a way that
signals at particular angles experience constructive interference,
while other signals experience destructive interference.
Beamforming, therefore, takes advantage of interference to
change the directionality of the transmitted signal. Beamforming
can be used at both the transmit and receive sides in order to
achieve spatial selectivity.
Id. 15, 37.

3. Analysis
Petitioner relies on Landis as allegedly teaching various limitations of
the independent claims. See Pet. 5174. For example, with respect to
claim 1, Petitioner argues that Landis teaches the steps of employing a
24

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
selective range for charging or powering the electronic device and
implementing an adaptive power focusing to avoid obstacles interfering
with the RF signals between the receiver and the transmitter for regulating
two or more receivers providing charging or powering of the portable
electronic device. Id. at 5660. Petitioner cites Landiss description of
tracking movement of the device, focusing microwave energy from the
arrays at the devices location, and turning off an array when backscatter
indicates an obstacle in the path between the array and the device. Id.
Petitioner relies on Cordeiro for certain limitations of claim 1,
including generating pocket-forming RF waves from a transmitter through
an antenna connected to the transmitter, accumulating pockets of energy in
regions of space in the form of constructive interference patterns of the
generated RF waves, and surrounding null-spaces without accumulated
pockets of energy. Id. at 5358 (arguing that Landis in view of Cordeiro
teaches the limitations). Petitioner contends that even if Landiss
disclosure does not amount to beamforming (and thus the creation of
constructive and destructive interference patterns), Cordeiro teaches
beamforming and it would have been obvious to use such beamforming in
Landiss system. Id. at 50, 5355 (citing Ex. 1002 235, 24546).
In addition, similar to its asserted grounds based on the combination
of Lu and Won, Petitioner relies on Won for the limitation of employing a
selective range for charging or powering the electronic device in a
predetermined variety of spots with the accumulated pockets of energy.
Compare id. at 5658 (Landis, Cordeiro, and Won) with id. at 1921
(Lu and Won). Again, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious to modify Landis/Cordeiros system

25

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
according to Won because the modification would have amounted to the use
of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Id.
at 5051, 5758. According to Petitioner, [a]pplying Wons teachings to
Landis/Cordeiro allows Landis/Cordeiros system to be used only in
designated exclusive wireless charging areas, improving human safety, a
recognized concern of Landis. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, col. 4, ll. 3439).
Further, the modification would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary
skill in the art] since it would require merely configuring Landis/Cordeiros
system to further account for a targets location (a feature already present in
Landis) in deciding whether to provide wireless power to the device. Id.
Petitioner cites as support the testimony of Dr. Heppe, whose analysis is
substantially similar to that presented in the Petition. Id.; see Ex. 1002
26061. The remaining independent claims include limitations similar to
those of claim 1 for which Petitioner relies on Cordeiro and Won, and for
those limitations, Petitioner refers to its analysis of claim 1. See Pet. 6070,
7276.
Petitioners analysis is deficient for reasons similar to those explained
above for the asserted grounds based on Lu and Won, as we are not
persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine the teachings of Landis and Cordeiro with Won. See
supra Section II.B.4. As Patent Owner points out, the systems described in
Landis and Cordeiro deliver wireless power to devices in a substantially
different way than Won. See Prelim. Resp. 2326. Landiss system focuses
beams of microwave energy from adaptively-phased arrays of antennas to a
device with rectennas to convert the microwave energy and power the
device. Ex. 1005, col. 4, ll. 1726. Cordeiro discloses antenna arrays

26

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
propagating RF waves through space that constructively interfere at the
target device, similar to Lu. Ex. 1007 15, 37. Wons system does not
perform beamforming or utilize constructive interference patterns of RF
waves. Instead, it uses near-field magnetic resonance inducement with
electromagnetically coupled coils in the charging base station and mobile
device. Ex. 1004, col. 2, l. 65col. 3, l. 25. Given these fundamental
differences in how the systems wirelessly deliver power, we are not
persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered
applying the technique of Won to the combined system of Landis and
Cordeiro, or even viewed Won as compatible with those systems. See
Prelim. Resp. 2326; Ex. 1005, col. 1, l. 65col. 2, l. 15 (Landis
distinguishing systems that use electromagnetically coupled coils like Won).
Petitioners analysis regarding the combination with Cordeiro also is
insufficient. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to use Cordeiros beamforming in Landiss system
because both references are directed to charging targets by focusing
wireless RF beams, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
considered Cordeiro regarding how to focus Landis[s] beams, and would
have concluded that Cordeiros beamforming improves Landis. Pet. 50, 55
(citing Ex. 1002 245). Additionally, according to Petitioner, the
combination would have been nothing more than a use of a known technique
to improve a similar device in the same way. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 246).
The fact that two references disclose similar technology is not sufficient to
demonstrate a reason why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined
them. Petitioner also fails to explain in any detail why a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have viewed Cordeiros beamforming scheme as an

27

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
improvement to Landis. Assertions of obviousness cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citation omitted); In re Magnum Oil
Tools Intl, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (To satisfy its
burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory
statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based
on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.).
Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioners arguments for this reason as well.
Petitioner has not provided sufficient reasoning or explanation for the
proposed combination of Landis, Cordeiro, and Won. Accordingly,
Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that
(1) claims 17, 913, 15, 17, and 18 are unpatentable over Landis, Cordeiro,
and Won, or (2) claim 14 is unpatentable over Landis, Cordeiro, Won, and
Perkins, under 35 U.S.C. 103.

D. Conclusion
We conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely
than not that at least one challenged claim of the 125 patent is unpatentable.

III. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
the 125 patent.

28

PGR2016-00023
Patent 9,124,125 B2
PETITIONER:
Robert Greene Sterne
Jason D. Eisenberg
Yasser M. Mourtada
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
ymourtad-PTAB@skgf.com

PATENT OWNER:
Eric L. Sophir
Kevin R. Greenleaf
William F. Long
Matthew H. Horton
Roshan K. Bhattarai
DENTONS US LLP
eric.sophir@dentons.com
kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
bill.long@dentons.com
matthew.horton@dentons.com
roshan.bhattarai@dentons.com

29