PTAB

IPR2026-00232

Samsung Electronics America Inc v. Aq Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Smartphone Antenna Module
  • Brief Description: The ’875 patent discloses a smartphone antenna module designed to address space limitations by arranging concentric coil antenna patterns on both major surfaces of a substrate. These patterns are electrically connected through vias to provide functionalities like Near Field Communication (NFC), Magnetic Secure Transmission (MST), and Wireless Power Charging (WPC).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Seong, Kang, and Cho - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Seong in view of Kang and Cho.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Seong (PCT Publication 2017/175886), Kang (Application # 2018/0198209), and Cho (Korean Patent Publication 10-2017-0093670).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Seong, a PCT application teaching a smartphone antenna structure, serves as the primary reference. Seong disclosed arranging antenna patterns for NFC, MST, and WPC on the top and bottom surfaces of a substrate to reduce size and efficiently use internal space. Petitioner asserted Seong teaches the core limitations of claim 1, including a first antenna pattern with an inner coil (WPC) and outer coil (MST) on one surface, and a second antenna pattern with corresponding inner and outer patterns on the opposing surface. Seong also depicted concentric circular lines and radially-extending gaps through which extension lines pass.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Seong with Kang and Cho to implement well-known and predictable antenna design features. Kang and Cho were cited to explicitly teach elements Petitioner argued were either implicit or not fully detailed in Seong, such as: (1) using a plurality of vias to connect antenna patterns on opposing surfaces; (2) shaping all concentric coils in a circular-spiral form for space efficiency; (3) connecting and aligning the radially-extending gaps of the inner and outer coils; and (4) connecting the inner and outer coils in parallel for performance flexibility, a simple design choice taught by Kang.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because combining these elements involved applying known solutions to achieve the predictable benefits of improved space efficiency and reliable performance. The use of vias, concentric circular coils, and parallel connections were all common and well-understood techniques in antenna design.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ahn and 721Lee - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Ahn in view of 721Lee.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ahn (Application # 2019/0109373) and 721Lee (Application # 2017/0228721).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented Ahn as the primary reference, which teaches a smartphone antenna coil assembly with coils for NFC, MST, and wireless charging on opposing surfaces of a substrate. Ahn disclosed concentric circular coils, including a "first coil wiring" with a "partially disconnected" region (a radially-extending inner gap) that allows "lead wirings" to connect the coil to connection pads. Petitioner contended that Ahn's disclosure of an inner coil, outer coil, and a third central coil, along with the use of interlayer conductors (vias), meets most limitations of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA reading Ahn would have been motivated to incorporate teachings from 721Lee to further the shared goal of space efficiency. Where Ahn showed a gap in the inner coil for lead wirings, 721Lee explicitly taught that both inner and outer coils could "have the opened loop form" (i.e., gaps) to allow extension lines to connect to input/output terminals. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply 721Lee’s teachings to implement a similar gap in Ahn’s outer coil to route its connections, a known solution to improve layout efficiency in concentric coil arrangements.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was reasonably expected because running extension lines through gaps in concentric coils was a known, straightforward technique for creating compact and operable antenna modules. The combination represented a simple application of a known layout strategy (from 721Lee) to a similar antenna structure (in Ahn) to achieve the predictable result of improved space efficiency.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 1-20 based on 005Lee (Patent 10,269,005) in view of Seong and Cho, relying on similar motivations to combine references to achieve a space-efficient, multi-functional antenna module with coils on opposing surfaces.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’875 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.