PTAB

IPR2026-00234

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 ’564 patent discloses a smartphone antenna module designed to address space limitations within a device. The invention arranges multiple "coil antenna patterns" in concentric rings on both the first and second major surfaces of a substrate and electrically connects the corresponding patterns on opposing sides through vias.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-22 are obvious over Seong in view of Kang and Cho.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Seong (PCT Publication No. WO 2017/175886), Kang (Application # 2018/0198209), and Cho (Korean Patent Publication No. 10-2017-0093670).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Seong taught the foundational structure of a smartphone antenna module with antenna patterns (for NFC, MST, and WPC) on both a top and bottom surface of a substrate to save space. Seong disclosed a WPC pattern as an inner coil and an MST pattern as a surrounding outer coil. Petitioner argued that Kang and Cho provided the remaining claimed features, which were well-known and predictable modifications. Specifically, Kang and Cho taught using concentric, circular coils with radially-extending, aligned gaps to route extension lines, connecting coils on opposite surfaces via a plurality of vias, and connecting inner and outer coils electrically in parallel.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA), starting with Seong’s space-efficient, dual-sided antenna design, would combine its teachings with Kang and Cho to further improve performance and layout efficiency. The motivations were described as: (1) using vias as taught by Kang and Cho to connect coils on opposing surfaces, a common method to increase surface area; (2) modifying Seong’s coil shapes to be concentric and circular with aligned gaps, as taught by Kang and Cho, to implement a known and space-efficient layout variation; and (3) connecting Seong’s coils in parallel, as taught by Kang, a simple design choice to improve security for close-distance transactions.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the proposed modifications involved a finite number of predictable solutions. Using vias, concentric circular coils, and parallel electrical connections were all well-known, straightforward design choices in the art that yielded predictable results.

Ground 2: Claims 1-22 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 contended that Ahn served as the primary reference, disclosing a smartphone antenna coil assembly with concentric coils on opposing surfaces of a substrate. Ahn explicitly taught an inner antenna pattern (“first coil wiring”) comprising concentric circular lines defining a “partially disconnected” region (a radially-extending inner gap) to allow “lead wirings” to connect to pads. Petitioner asserted that 721Lee rendered obvious the claimed outer gap. 721Lee taught coils in an "opened loop form" with gaps or "intervals" that allow extension lines to connect inner coils to terminals by passing through the outer coil structure. The combination of Ahn’s inner gap and 721Lee’s outer gap allegedly met the claim limitation of connected and aligned gaps.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA reviewing Ahn’s design, which already used a gap in an inner coil for routing wires, would be motivated to incorporate 721Lee’s teachings to further optimize space efficiency. 721Lee explicitly explained that gaps in outer coils beneficially allow inner coils to be connected to terminals. This combination represented a known solution to the common problem of routing connections in a compact, multi-coil antenna module.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would reasonably expect success because combining the teachings was a straightforward implementation of a known layout technique. Both references taught similar concentric coil structures on dual-sided substrates, and using gaps to route extension lines was a known method to achieve a predictable, space-efficient antenna.

Ground 3: Claims 1-22 are obvious over 005Lee in view of Seong and Cho.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: 005Lee (Patent 10,269,005), Seong (WO 2017/175886), and Cho (Korean Patent Publication No. 10-2017-0093670).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner used 005Lee as the base reference, arguing it taught a smartphone antenna module with concentric WPC, MST, and NFC coils and mentioned forming coils on opposing sides of a substrate. However, 005Lee only provided a detailed layout for one surface. Seong was used to provide a detailed, analogous layout for the opposing surface, as well as explicit teachings of radially-extending gaps for extension lines. Cho was introduced to supply the teaching of connecting the inner and outer coils in parallel.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA starting with 005Lee’s general disclosure of a two-sided antenna would be motivated to look to a similar reference like Seong for a concrete example of a complementary layout for the second side. Given the similarities in their space-efficiency goals and concentric coil structures, implementing Seong's layout on the back of 005Lee’s substrate would be a natural combination. A POSITA would also incorporate Cho's teaching of parallel connection as a simple design choice and the use of vias from Seong and Cho as a common interconnection method.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because the combination involved implementing known coil patterns on both sides of a substrate, a common practice taught by both 005Lee and Seong. Incorporating Seong's coil-gap design and Cho's parallel connection method were straightforward implementations of known techniques to achieve the predictable result of a compact and functional multi-purpose antenna.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-22 of the ’564 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.