PTAB

IPR2022-00636

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Scramoge Technology Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Charger Equipped with Auxiliary Power Supply and Auxiliary Power Device
  • Brief Description: The ’652 patent relates to a wireless charger that includes an auxiliary power supply. This integrated supply features a battery, a charge/discharge module, and a boost converter, enabling the charger to power an electronic device wirelessly using either an external power source or its internal battery when external power is lost.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5 are obvious over Zhu

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhu (Application # 2014/0132206).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the single reference of Zhu teaches all elements of the challenged claims. Zhu discloses a portable battery charger with inductive charging capability, an auxiliary power supply (comprising battery 70, battery charger 62, junction 63, and charge control switch 66), and a wireless power transmission unit. Petitioner asserted that Zhu’s system operates identically to the claimed invention by charging a device wirelessly from an external source (while simultaneously charging its internal battery) and, upon removal of the external source, powering the wireless transmission from the internal battery. Petitioner mapped Zhu’s explicit disclosure of a DC/DC converter that can "upconvert from a battery voltage to a system voltage" to comply with standards like Qi directly to the claimed "boost converter." The dependent claims reciting a "wired output unit" were allegedly taught by Zhu's power multiplexer and output connector.
    • Key Aspects: This ground asserted that the claimed invention was not a novel combination but merely the straightforward implementation of teachings and obvious alternatives already described within the single Zhu reference.

Ground 2: Claims 1 and 2 are obvious over Aoki in view of Yoo

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aoki (Japanese Application Publication No. 2011-35964) and Yoo (Application # 2013/0278207).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Aoki discloses a wireless charger with a functional auxiliary power unit (including secondary battery 154 and charging circuit 156) that powers wireless charging from either an external source or its internal battery, thereby teaching most limitations of claim 1. However, Petitioner argued that Aoki does not explicitly teach a boost converter. Yoo was cited to supply this missing element, as it teaches a wireless charging apparatus using a "voltage up converter" (875) to boost an input voltage to a level suitable for efficient wireless charging. For claim 2, Petitioner asserted that Aoki lacks a wired output unit, which Yoo teaches as a "wired charging unit" (850) that operates in parallel with the wireless charging unit.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Aoki and Yoo to improve the performance, efficiency, and functionality of Aoki's device. As both references address the same field and problem of efficient device charging, a POSITA would have recognized the benefit of incorporating Yoo's well-understood boost converter into Aoki’s system to provide an appropriate, stable voltage for wireless transmission—a common design practice for complying with industry standards. Similarly, adding Yoo’s wired charging option would be a known method to increase user convenience and reduce manufacturing costs, as noted by Yoo.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in this combination. The integration involves applying a known technique (voltage boosting from Yoo) to a compatible system (Aoki's charger) to achieve the predictable result of improved power transmission, and adding a standard wired output was described by Yoo as "generally known in the art."

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution of the inter partes review (IPR) under Fintiv. The core arguments asserted that the parallel district court litigation was at a very early stage with minimal discovery completed and a trial date scheduled for July 2023, only one month prior to the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD). To promote efficiency and avoid duplicative efforts, Petitioner stipulated that it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court if the IPR were instituted. Petitioner also contended that denial under General Plastics was unwarranted because this was its first petition challenging the ’652 patent, meaning concerns about serial petitions were inapplicable.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an IPR and the cancellation of claims 1-5 of Patent 9,490,652 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.