PTAB

IPR2014-00714

US Department Of Homeland Security v. Golden Larry

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Providing Power to an Electronic Device
  • Brief Description: The ’674 patent discloses a wireless charging system that assists a user in properly aligning a portable electronic device on a charging base. The system uses visual and/or audio indicators to provide feedback on the alignment between a power-transmitting coil in the base and a power-receiving coil in the device to ensure efficient inductive power transfer.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Baarman and Stevens - Claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13, and 14 are obvious over Baarman in view of Stevens.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baarman (Patent 7,180,248) and Stevens (Application # 2008/0231219).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Baarman disclosed the core elements of a wireless charging system as claimed in independent claim 1, including a charging base with a primary (transmitting) coil and a portable device with a secondary (receiving) coil. However, Baarman lacked a specific user-guidance mechanism for alignment. Petitioner contended that Stevens remedied this deficiency by teaching a visual alignment system using an array of indicators (e.g., LEDs) to guide a user in positioning a first object relative to a second. Stevens’s system determined the relative position and activated corresponding indicators to show the direction of misalignment, directly mapping onto the "indicator means" limitations of the ’674 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Baarman’s wireless charging system with Stevens’s alignment indicator system to solve the well-known problem of inefficient power transfer caused by coil misalignment. Providing users with intuitive, visual feedback as taught by Stevens would be a straightforward and predictable solution to improve the usability and performance of the charging system taught by Baarman.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in integrating these known technologies. The principles of inductive charging and visual position indication were well-understood, and their combination represented the predictable application of a known alignment solution to a known charging system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Baarman, Stevens, and Miller - Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, and 14 are obvious over Baarman in view of Stevens and further in view of Miller.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baarman (Patent 7,180,248), Stevens (Application # 2008/0231219), and Miller (Patent 7,212,414).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Baarman/Stevens combination to address limitations in claims related to controller functionality, specifically determining power transfer based on communication with the device. Petitioner argued that while Baarman and Stevens provided the primary system and alignment features, Miller disclosed an intelligent power supply system with a controller that communicates with a portable device to identify its power requirements. Miller’s controller then adjusts the power supplied accordingly. This teaching, Petitioner asserted, supplied the missing elements related to the controller determining and providing an appropriate amount of power based on device identification.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Miller’s intelligent power control with the Baarman/Stevens system to create a more efficient, versatile, and safer charger. The motivation was to build a system that not only ensures proper alignment for power transfer but also intelligently manages that power transfer based on the specific needs of the device being charged, a known goal in the field of universal wireless chargers.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Baarman, Stevens, and Cook - Claims 6, 7, 10, and 11 are obvious over Baarman in view of Stevens and further in view of Cook.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baarman (Patent 7,180,248), Stevens (Application # 2008/0231219), and Cook (Patent 7,825,543).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted dependent claims requiring an audible indicator for alignment. Petitioner asserted the Baarman/Stevens combination taught the foundational system with visual alignment feedback. Cook was introduced because it explicitly disclosed using an audible indicator (e.g., beeps or tones) in a wireless power system to signal to a user when proper alignment between coils has been achieved. This directly corresponded to the limitations of claims 6, 7, 10, and 11.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Cook’s audible feedback to the visually-guided system of Baarman and Stevens to provide a multi-modal user interface. Offering both visual and audible cues is a common and well-established design principle for improving usability, as it accommodates different user preferences and environments (e.g., low-light conditions or users with visual impairments).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "indicator means for indicating an alignment": Petitioner argued this term in independent claim 1 should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6. The claimed function was identified as "indicating an alignment of said primary coil and said secondary coil." Petitioner asserted the corresponding structure disclosed in the ’674 patent’s specification was the "indicator" itself (e.g., LEDs, LCD screen) and the "controller" that drives it. This construction was critical for mapping the indicator systems of the prior art, such as the LED array and processor in Stevens, to the claim limitations.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13, and 14 of the ’674 patent as unpatentable.