GBT Inc v. Walletex Microelectronics Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-00326
• Patent #: 7,458,825
• Filed: January 4, 2018
• Petitioner(s): G.B.T. Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Walletex Microelectronics Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1-13 and 16-24

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Double-Sided USB-Compatible Plug Connector Adapted for Insertion in Either Orientation into a USB-Compatible Receptacle
• Brief Description: The ’825 patent discloses a multi-contact plug connector, such as a USB connector, with two sets of contacts on opposite surfaces. The contacts are interconnected such that the connector has identical functionality when inserted into a standard single-sided receptacle in either of two orientations (180 degrees opposed).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Yoo and Chen/APA - Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, 16-17, 20, 21, 23, and 24 are obvious over Yoo in view of Chen or Admitted Prior Art (APA)

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Yoo (Application # 2003/0171035), Chen (Patent 6,564,275), and APA from the ’825 patent itself.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Yoo discloses the core limitations of independent claim 1, including a reversible, multi-contact USB connector with contacts on opposite surfaces. Yoo’s contacts are electrically interconnected through via-holes and diagonally symmetrical, allowing the plug to be inserted in a standard receptacle in a normal or reverse position while maintaining functionality. Chen and the APA both disclose adding circuitry to a USB device to prevent short circuits. For example, Chen teaches using a diode to prevent reverse current flow, and the APA discloses using a comparison circuit to detect a shortcut.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the reversible connector of Yoo with the known short-circuit prevention techniques of Chen or the APA. Both Yoo and the secondary references operate in the same field (USB connectors) and address related problems. Adding a well-understood safety feature like short-circuit protection to a new connector design would have been a predictable and logical improvement to ensure the safety of associated users and equipment.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. Combining a standard diode or protection circuit with a connector's power lines is a routine design step with predictable results and no technical barriers.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Yoo, Chen, and Flesher - Claim 3 is obvious over Yoo in view of Chen and Flesher

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Yoo (Application # 2003/0171035), Chen (Patent 6,564,275), and Flesher (Application # 2001/0031511).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Yoo/Chen combination for the features of claims 1 and 2, which claim 3 depends from. To meet the additional limitation of claim 3—a planar substrate made of a resilient material that can bend without losing functionality—Petitioner cited Flesher. Flesher discloses a "stress-free wafer" made of a semiconductor material that can be bent through a substantial angle (e.g., a 2-inch radius, which is less than the claimed 50 cm) without fracturing or losing electrical functionality.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify the connector of Yoo/Chen by using the flexible substrate taught by Flesher. This would provide a more resilient and durable device, expanding its range of use and increasing longevity, which are recognized design goals in the art of portable electronics.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was asserted to be predictable, as it involved substituting one known substrate material for another to gain the known benefit of flexibility.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Yoo, Chen, and Lin - Claim 7 is obvious over Yoo in view of Chen and Lin

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Yoo (Application # 2003/0171035), Chen (Patent 6,564,275), and Lin (Patent 6,733,328).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground uses the Yoo/Chen combination for the base connector and adds Lin to teach the limitation of claim 7: being adapted for connection to an earphone. Lin explicitly discloses a USB cable adapter with one end connected to an earphone.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the earphone connection of Lin with the reversible connector of Yoo to make the device more versatile. Adding a common audio output feature to a multi-functional USB device would have been a simple and desirable modification to broaden its application.
  • Expectation of Success: Wiring a readily available audio driver circuit and earphone to the contacts of a USB connector like Yoo’s would be a trivial modification for a POSITA, with predictable results.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Yoo and Chen with Rubin (Patent 6,701,522) to teach features like magnetic stripes and device authentication, and with Abbott (Patent 6,671,808) to teach features like biometric sensors and electro-physiological data capture.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner proposed constructions for three key terms under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standard, arguing they are central to the obviousness analysis.

• "FCCS": The term, an abbreviation for "flexibly connectable computer systems," should be construed broadly as "any interface standard for allowing devices to be connected to a computer," not limited to USB. This is based on an explicit definition in the ’825 patent specification.
• "spatially aligned" and "mutually opposed": These terms should not be limited to a strict 180-degree "anti-phase" relationship. Petitioner argued the specification and file history do not contain a clear disclaimer of other spatial relationships, so the terms should be construed more broadly to include any opposed alignment that allows for reversible connection.
• "short circuit prevention device": This term should be construed simply as "a device that is configured to prevent a short circuit." Petitioner argued the specification provides non-limiting examples (diodes, relay circuits) but does not limit the claim to any specific implementation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) would be inappropriate. The petition was filed less than a week after a related petition (IPR2018-00325) against the same patent. Petitioner asserted that under the General Plastic factors, this short time frame means minimal time has passed, the Patent Owner had not yet filed a preliminary response, and the Board's resources would not be unduly affected, especially since the proceedings could be readily consolidated.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 1-13 and 16-24 of the ’825 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.