PTAB

IPR2016-00630

Battery Biz Inc v. Comarco Wireless Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Power Supply Equipment for Simultaneously Providing Operating Voltages to a Plurality of Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’770 patent discloses power supply equipment capable of simultaneously providing different DC voltages to multiple electronic devices, such as a laptop computer. The system includes circuitry for voltage conversion, output cables, and a connector adapter for mating a main power cable with a specific electronic device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 7, 13, and 37 are obvious over SMK in view of Chen

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: SMK (Japanese Patent Publication No. H5-184064) and Chen (Patent 5,783,927).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that SMK, a power supply for simultaneously charging multiple devices like laptops, discloses nearly all limitations of the independent claims. This included circuitry for providing multiple DC voltages, separate connection points, and cables with connectors. However, Petitioner contended that SMK’s adapter is an "adapter cord" with connectors in separate housings joined by a cable. The claims require a "connector adapter" with first and second pluralities of contacts disposed "in a single housing" and electrically coupled "without a cable" between them. Chen was asserted to teach this missing element, disclosing a power supply for laptops with various "output jacks" (adapters) that plug into a universal socket. These jacks are single-housing units with internal connections, designed to mate with different laptop models.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Chen’s single-housing adapter with SMK’s power supply system. The motivation would be to replace SMK’s bulkier and more complex adapter cord with a known, superior alternative. This substitution would yield predictable benefits of reduced size, lower manufacturing cost, improved durability, and easier storage.
    • Expectation of Success: The petition argued that success was expected because the combination involved a simple substitution of one known type of connector (a single-housing adapter from Chen) for another (a cabled adapter from SMK) to achieve a more compact and robust design, a well-known engineering trade-off.

Ground 2: Claims 7, 8, 13, 14, 37, and 38 are obvious over SMK in view of Radio Shack

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: SMK (Japanese Patent Publication No. H5-184064) and Radio Shack (catalogs from 1992-1996).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented a similar argument to Ground 1, using the Radio Shack catalogs as the secondary reference to cure the deficiencies of SMK. Petitioner asserted that SMK taught the foundational power supply system, but lacked the claimed single-housing, cable-less adapter. The Radio Shack catalogs were argued to disclose this feature through their sale of "Adaptaplugs." These were a series of interchangeable, single-housing connector tips for universal power supplies, allowing a single power cord to connect to various electronic devices. Dependent claims 8, 14, and 38, which recite a cellular telephone as the electronic device, were argued to be obvious because cellular phones were common devices in the relevant timeframe and the Radio Shack catalogs also disclosed portable charging devices for them.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine was identical to that in Ground 1. A POSITA would be motivated to modify SMK’s system by incorporating the well-known "Adaptaplugs" from Radio Shack to make the system more versatile, compact, and cost-effective. The use of interchangeable tips for universal chargers was a common and established practice.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in making this combination. It represented a straightforward application of a known design principle (using interchangeable adapter tips) to an existing system (SMK’s multi-device power supply) to achieve predictable improvements in usability and form factor.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Adapter": Petitioner proposed construing "Adapter" as "a component which provides the necessary accommodations to electrically connect two or more items whose design or function will not normally permit their connection." This construction was central to the argument that the single-housing "output jacks" of Chen and "Adaptaplugs" of Radio Shack met the claim limitation, distinguishing them from the cabled adapter cord disclosed in SMK.
  • "Cable": Petitioner proposed construing "Cable" as "an assembly of one or more insulated conductors...within an enveloping jacket." This supported the argument that the claimed "without a cable" limitation was met by the internal wiring of the single-housing adapters in Chen and Radio Shack, as opposed to the external, jacketed cord of the adapter in SMK.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 7, 8, 13, 14, 37, and 38 of the ’770 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.