PTAB

IPR2022-00736

Apple Inc v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: IN-BUILT ANTENNA FOR MOBILE COMMUNICATION DEVICE
  • Brief Description: The ’849 patent discloses an antenna configuration for a mobile communication device, such as a mobile phone. The invention pertains to an in-built antenna and a ground plane contained entirely within the device's housing, with the ground plane supported in a facing, spaced-apart parallel relationship with the antenna pattern.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kojola and Lyons - Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 12-14, and 19-20 are obvious over Kojola in view of Lyons.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kojola (Application # 2003/0054855) and Lyons (Great Britain Publication No. GB2345209A).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kojola taught an internal antenna system for a mobile phone, including an antenna pattern disposed on a main printed circuit board (PCB) or chassis. However, Kojola's design would be susceptible to interference. Lyons taught a radio receiver that used an electrically conductive sheet metal housing and an integrated ground reference panel to shield electronic components from interference and provide a ground reference for the antenna. Petitioner contended that combining Lyons’s shielding and ground reference panel with Kojola's internal antenna system would result in the claimed invention. The combination would disclose an antenna pattern on a main PCB (Kojola) and a ground plane supported by a mounting device (Lyons’s housing) in a spaced-apart relationship with both the antenna and the main PCB (the result of the combination).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kojola and Lyons for several reasons. First, to shield Kojola’s sensitive electronic components from external interference, a known problem addressed by Lyons’s shielding housing. Second, to improve antenna performance by providing a dedicated ground reference, as Lyons taught that doing so enhances signal reception and minimizes interference. Third, the combination was presented as applying a well-known technique (shielding) to a known system (an internal antenna) to achieve the predictable result of improved performance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success due to the structural similarities between the printed circuit configurations in Kojola and Lyons, making the integration straightforward and the results predictable.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kojola, Lyons, and Courtney - Claims 5 and 15 are obvious over Kojola, Lyons, and Courtney.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kojola (Application # 2003/0054855), Lyons (Great Britain Publication No. GB2345209A), and Courtney (Patent 5,597,979).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Kojola/Lyons combination from Ground 1 and added Courtney to address the limitations of claims 5 and 15, which require the ground plane to comprise a "flexible printed circuit board." Courtney disclosed using a "flexible electrically conductive sheet material" for EMI shielding, which could form a shield barrier or enclosure. Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have understood Courtney's flexible material, such as a polymer sheet with a laminated conductive layer, to be an example of a flexible circuit. Applying this teaching to the ground plane of the Kojola/Lyons combination would satisfy the claim limitations.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Courtney's teachings to form the ground plane of the Kojola/Lyons combination because flexible circuits were well-known and provided advantages in packaging, such as the ability to conform to three-dimensional contours. It was argued to be a simple application of a known technique (using flexible circuits for shielding) to improve a known system, yielding predictable benefits in manufacturing and design flexibility.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because flexible circuit technology and its associated manufacturing techniques were well-known in the art for forming ground planes and shielding components in compact electronic devices.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Kojola, Lyons, and Fjelstad - Claim 6 is obvious over Kojola, Lyons, and Fjelstad.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kojola (Application # 2003/0054855), Lyons (Great Britain Publication No. GB2345209A), and Fjelstad (Patent 5,615,824).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 6, which depended from claim 4 and required that an end portion of the ground plane be joined to the opposing surface of the PCB "by means of heat sealing." Building on the Kojola/Lyons combination, Petitioner introduced Fjelstad, which taught methods for making soldered connections in microelectronic devices. Fjelstad disclosed using solder to form a "permanent metallurgical bond" by heating, which Petitioner equated with the claimed "heat sealing."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having combined Kojola and Lyons, would be motivated to use a robust and reliable method to electrically connect the ground plane structure to the PCB. Fjelstad provided such a known method. Applying Fjelstad’s heat sealing technique would ensure a continuous, sealed electrical bond, filling potential gaps and addressing known challenges in microelectronic manufacturing, such as thermal cycling and manufacturing tolerances.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have readily understood how to implement soldering techniques as taught by Fjelstad to connect conductive elements to a PCB. The process was a common and well-understood method for making electrical connections, ensuring a predictable and successful outcome.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations incorporating Angulas (for "hot bar soldering"), Soltys (for a "conductive gasket"), and See (for adding a "microstrip" parasitic element to the antenna structure), but relied on similar design modification and problem-solving rationales.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’849 patent as unpatentable.