The Noco Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2021

IPR2020-00944 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 73
571-272-7822 Date: November 3, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

SHENZHEN CARKU TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
Petitioner,

v.

THE NOCO COMPANY
Patent Owner.
_______________

IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1
_______________

Before JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. McKONE, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
Denying Motions to Exclude
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

2
I. INTRODUCTION
We have authority to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6. This Final Written Decision issues pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and
37 C.F.R. § 42.73. We determine that Shenzhen Carku Technology Co.,
Ltd. (“Petitioner”) has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 1–10 and 12–23 of U.S. Patent 9,007,015 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’015
patent”) are unpatentable, but not proved that claim 11 is unpatentable.
A. Background
Petitioner filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–23
(“challenged claims”) of the ’015 Patent.” Paper 2 (“Pet.”). The NOCO
Company (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 10.
Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply. Paper 13. Patent Owner filed a
Preliminary Sur-Reply. Paper 14. We instituted review on November 12,
2020. Paper 20 (“Decision on Institution” or “DI”). Patent Owner filed a
Patent Owner Response, an authorized Patent Owner Supplemental
Response, and an authorized Corrected Patent Owner Supplemental
Response. Paper 28 (PO Resp.); Paper 49 (“Supp. PO Resp.”); Paper 50
(Corr. PO Supp. Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 51. Patent Owner
filed a Sur-Reply. Paper 58.
Oral hearing was held on August 12, 2021. A copy of the hearing
transcript has been entered into the record as Paper 72 (“Tr.”). Each party
has filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence, which the other party opposes.
Papers 64, 65.
B. Real Parties-in-Interest
Each party identifies itself as the only real party-in-interest. Pet. 93;
Paper 5, 1.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

3
C. Related Matters
The parties identify multiple district court litigation involving the ’015
patent, in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Ohio,
the Southern District of Ohio, the Northern District of California, the Central
District of California, the District of Delaware, and the Middle District of
Florida. Pet. 94–95; Paper 5, 1–2. Petitioner is not a party to any of these
district court litigations. Prelim. Resp. 32. The parties also identify
IPR2018-00503 as a proceeding involving a petition for inter partes review
of claims 1–21 and 23 the ’015 patent. Pet. 96; Paper 5, 3. Petitioner was
not the petitioner in that proceeding. The Board declined institution in
IPR2018-00503 on July 11, 2018. IPR2018-00503, Paper 9. Related
IPR2021-00309 was also filed on December 11, 2020, as a “follow-on”
petition attempting to join this proceeding, and Petitioner was also not the
petitioner in that proceeding. The Board declined institution in IPR2021-
00309 on May 10, 2021. IPR2021-00309, Paper 11.
D. The ’015 Patent
The ’015 patent is titled “Portable Vehicle Battery Jump Start
Apparatus with Safety Protection.” Ex. 1001, Code (54). It discloses an
apparatus for jump starting a vehicle engine, which apparatus includes an
internal power supply, an output port having positive and negative polarity
outputs, a “vehicle battery isolation sensor” to detect presence of a vehicle
battery connected between the positive and negative polarity outputs, a
“reverse polarity sensor” to detect the polarity of the vehicle battery
connected between the positive and negative outputs, a power FET switch
connected between the internal power supply and the output port, and a
microcontroller which receives input signals from the vehicle battery
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

4
isolation sensor and the reverse polarity sensor and provides an output signal
to the power FET switch. Id. at 3:16–30. The ’015 patent describes that the
power FET switch is turned on by the microcontroller to connect the internal
power supply to the output port in response to signals from the two sensors
indicating the presence of a vehicle battery at the output port and proper
polarity connection of positive and negative terminals of the vehicle battery
with the positive and negative polarity outputs. Id. at 3:31–36.
Figure 1 of the ’015 patent is a functional block diagram of the
disclosed apparatus and is reproduced below.

Figure 1 is a functional block diagram of a handheld vehicle battery
boost apparatus according to the ’015 patent. Id. at 3:50–52.
The apparatus includes, inter alia, lithium polymer battery pack 32,
car battery isolation sensor 12, car battery reverse sensor 10, smart switch
FET circuit 15, and programmable microcontroller unit (MCU) 1. Id. at
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

5
3:67–4:1, 4:20–38. Reverse sensor 10 “monitors the polarity of the vehicle
battery 72 when the handheld battery booster device is connected to the
vehicle’s electric system.” Id. at 4:20–22. Car battery isolation sensor 12
“detects whether or not a vehicle battery 72 is connected to the booster
device.” Id. at 4:26–28. Smart switch FET circuit 15 “electrically switches
the handheld battery booster lithium battery to the vehicle’s electric system
only when the vehicle battery is determined by the MCU 1 to be present (in
response to a detection signal provided by isolation sensor 12) and
connected with the correct polarity (in response to a detection signal
provided by reverse sensor 10).” Id. at 4:32–38.
Figure 2A-4 of the ’015 patent discloses preferred embodiments of the
vehicle isolation sensor 12 and the reverse sensor 10:

IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

6
Id., Fig. 2A-4. Figure 2A-4, above, is a schematic circuit diagram depicting
elements of an exemplary embodiment of a handheld vehicle battery boost
apparatus. E.g., id. at 3:53–55. Element 12 of Fig. 2A-4 is a preferred
embodiment of the vehicle isolation sensor and comprises optocoupler LED
11A that, “if the battery 72 is connected to the terminals of the booster
device with the correct polarity,” will conduct current, “and is therefore
turned on, . . . indicating the presence of a battery across the jumper output
terminals of the handheld booster device.” Id. at 5:26–36. Element 10 of
Fig. 2A-4 is a preferred embodiment of the car battery reverse sensor and
comprises optocoupler LED 11 that, “if the battery 72 is connected to the
terminals of the booster device with the correct polarity,” will not conduct
current, “and is therefore turned off.” Id. at 5:17–26.
The ’015 patent explains:
If the car battery 72 is connected to the handheld booster device with
reverse polarity, the optocoupler LED 11 of the reverse sensor 10 will
conduct current, providing a “0” or low signal to microcontroller unit
1. Further, if no battery is connected to the handheld booster device,
the optocoupler LED 11A of the isolation sensor 12 will not conduct
current, and is therefore turned off, providing a “1” or high output
signal to the MCU, indicating the absence of any battery connected to
the handheld booster device. Using these specific inputs, the
microcontroller software of MCU 1 can determine when it is safe to
turn on the smart switch FET 15, thereby connecting the lithium battery
pack to the jumper terminals of the booster device. Consequently, if
the car battery 72 either is not connected to the booster device at all, or
is connected with reverse polarity, the MCU 1 can keep the smart
switch FET 15 from being turned on, thus prevent[ing] sparking/short
circuiting of the lithium battery pack.
Id. at 5:37–54.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

7
E. Sole Independent Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed letters added consistent
with the labeling in the claim charts of the Petition, is the sole independent
claim and is illustrative of the challenged claims (paragraph break added
between limitations 1.f and 1.g).
1. Apparatus for jump starting a vehicle engine, comprising:
[a] an internal power supply;
[b] an output port having positive and negative polarity outputs;
[c] a vehicle battery isolation sensor connected in circuit with
said positive and negative polarity outputs, configured to
detect presence of a vehicle battery connected between said
positive and negative polarity outputs;
[d] a reverse polarity sensor connected in circuit with said
positive and negative polarity outputs, configured to detect
polarity of a vehicle battery connected between said positive
and negative polarity outputs and to provide an output signal
indicating whether positive and negative terminals of said
vehicle battery are properly connected with said positive and
negative polarity outputs of said output port;
[e] a power switch connected between said internal power supply
and said output port; and
[f] a microcontroller configured to receive input signals from
said vehicle isolation sensor and said reverse polarity sensor,
and to provide an output signal to said power switch,
[g] such that said power switch is turned on to cause said internal
power supply to be connected to said output port in response
to signals from said sensors indicating the presence of a
vehicle battery at said output port and proper polarity
connection of positive and negative terminals of said vehicle
battery with said positive and negative polarity outputs, and
is not turned on when signals from said sensors indicate either
the absence of a vehicle battery at said output port or
improper polarity connection of positive and negative
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

8
terminals of said vehicle battery with said positive and
negative polarity outputs.
Id. at 8:4–37.
F. Prior Art Relied Upon by Petitioner
Petitioner relies on the following references:1
References Date Exhibit
Richardson US Pub. App.
2013/0154543 A1
Published June 20,
2013
Ex. 1006
Klang US Patent No.
6,424,158 B2
Issued July 3,
2002
Ex. 1007
Lei US Patent No.
9,954,391 B2
Issued Apr. 24,
2018; Filed Nov.
8, 2013
Ex. 1008
Krieger US Pub. App.
2004/0130298
A1
Published
July 8, 2004
Ex. 1009
Wanzong US Patent No.
5,319,298
Issued June
7, 1994
Ex. 1010
Baxter WO 2010/129723 A2
(International
Published Pat. App.)
Published Nov.
11, 2010
Ex. 1011
Epower-20 Product Brochure for
Model E-Power-20B,
Shenzhen Carku
Technology Co., Ltd.
Allegedly
Distributed Apr.
15 – May 5, 2014,
at “2014 Canton
Fair”
Ex. 1012

1 The ’015 patent issued from Application 14/325,938, filed July 8, 2014,
which is a continuation of Application PCT/US2014/045434, filed July 3,
2014. Ex. 1001 at Codes [21], [22], [63].
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

9
References Date Exhibit
Epower-21 Product Brochure for
Model E-Power-21,
Shenzhen Carku
Technology Co., Ltd.
Allegedly
Distributed Apr.
15 – May 5, 2014,
at “2014 Canton
Fair”
Ex. 1013
Richardet US Patent 8,172,603
B1
Issued May 8,
2012
Ex. 1014
Petitioner also relies on the Declarations of James L. Kirtley, Jr.,
Ph.D. (Exs. 1002, 1050) and Xingliang Lei (Ex. 1022).
G. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
following grounds:

2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 effective March
16, 2013. Because the challenged patent has an effective filing date after
March 16, 2013 (Ex. 1001, Codes (22), (63)), we refer to the post-AIA
versions of §§ 102 and 103.
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §2 Basis
1, 7–9, 15, 17–
21
102 Richardson
2, 3, 12–14, 23 103 Richardson, Lei
4, 5 103 Richardson, Krieger
6 103 Richardson, Wanzong
16 103 Richardson, Baxter
10–13 103
Richardson and either
Epower-20 or Epower-21
22 103 Richardson, Richardet
1, 17, 21 102 Klang
4, 5 103 Klang, Krieger
22 103 Klang, Richardet
23 103 Klang, Lei
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

10
II. ANALYSIS
To prevail in its challenge to Patent Owner’s claims, Petitioner must
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are
unpatentable.3 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). That burden
never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics,
Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
A. Level of Ordinary Skill
Petitioner asserts that in the relevant time frame, a person of ordinary
skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a minimum of a bachelor’s
degree in electrical engineering or its equivalent and two years of experience
in electrical engineering with some experience in design of battery charging
systems.” Pet. 9. Petitioner also contends that graduate education could
substitute for professional experience, and that significant experience in the
field could substitute for formal education. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 14).
Patent Owner has not proposed a description of the level of ordinary
skill in the art or disputed Petitioner’s articulation. Petitioner’s articulation
of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the Declaration of
Dr. Kirtley. Ex. 1002 ¶ 14. It also appears consistent with what is reflected
by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau,
261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect
an appropriate level of skill).

3 The burden of showing something by a preponderance of the evidence
requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more
probable than its nonexistence before the trier of fact may find in favor of
the party who carries the burden. Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v.
Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993).
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

11
We adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the
art, but delete the qualifier “a minimum of” for the level of education to keep
that level from being vague and extending to a range that corresponds to the
skill level of an expert. Thus, we regard the level of ordinary skill as being
at the level of a person with “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or
its equivalent and two years of experience in electrical engineering with
some experience in design of battery charging systems.”
B. Claim Construction
We use the same claim construction standard that would be used to
construe claims in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including
construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary
meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and
the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
(2019). Thus, we apply the claim construction standard from Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).4
Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary
meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art in the
context of the specification, the prosecution history, other claims, and even
extrinsic evidence including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and
learned treatises, although extrinsic evidence is less significant than the
intrinsic record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17. Usually, the specification is
dispositive, and it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.
Id. at 1315.

4 Petitioner asserts that “[claim construction] standards applied during IPR
are different from those in litigation.” Pet. 10 n.2. That is incorrect.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

12
The specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term
by the patentee, or the specification or prosecution history may reveal an
intentional disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope by the inventor. Id. at
1316. If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition
must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d
1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The disavowal, if any, can be effectuated by
language in the specification or the prosecution history. Poly-America, L.P.
v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed,
and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor
Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed.
Cir. 2017); Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed.
Cir. 2011); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
(Fed. Cir. 1999).
Petitioner proposes a construction relating to four terms in claim 1:
(1) “reverse polarity sensor,” (2) “vehicle battery isolation sensor,”
(3) “input signals from said vehicle isolation sensor and said reverse polarity
sensor,” and (4) “output port.” Pet. 11. Petitioner states that its proposed
claim constructions “are the same as the constructions made in the Shenzen
Dika Order (Ex. 1005 at 14–15) and the SmarTech Order (Ex. 1017 at 20–
31),” claim construction orders entered in related district court litigations.
Id. at 10. Patent Owner stated in the Preliminary Response that “Patent
Owner will agree that the claim constructions set forth by Petitioner that
were adopted in two pending litigations should be applied at this stage.”
Prelim. Resp. 7. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states:
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

13
“Patent Owner continues to agree that these constructions are appropriate.”
PO Resp. 11.
According to Petitioner, in the context of claim 1, “reverse polarity
sensor” is a reverse polarity sensor “separate from the vehicle battery
isolation sensor.” Pet. 11. We have reviewed the Specification of the ’015
patent and have no reason to disagree with the parties and the district courts.
We adopt the construction that “reverse polarity sensor” is “separate from
the vehicle battery isolation sensor.”
According to Petitioner, in the context of claim 1, “vehicle battery
isolation sensor” is a vehicle battery isolation sensor “separate from the
reverse polarity sensor.” Pet. 11. We have reviewed the Specification of the
’015 patent and have no reason to disagree with the parties and the district
courts. We adopt the construction that “vehicle battery isolation sensor” is
“separate from the reverse polarity sensor.”
According to Petitioner, in the context of claim 1, “input signals from
said vehicle isolation sensor and said reverse polarity sensor” are “[d]istinct
input signals from said vehicle isolation sensor and said reverse polarity
sensor, respectively.” Pet. 11. We have reviewed the Specification of the
’015 patent and have no reason to disagree with the parties and the district
courts. We adopt the construction that “input signals from said vehicle
isolation sensor and said reverse polarity sensor” are “distinct input signals
from said vehicle isolation sensor and said reverse polarity sensor,
respectively.”
According to Petitioner, in the context of claim 1, “output port” is a
“[c]omponent through which power from an internal power supply is
transmitted.” Pet. 11. We have reviewed the Specification of the ’015
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

14
patent and have no reason to disagree with the parties and the district courts
that in the context of claim 1, power from an internal power supply is
transmitted through the output port. We agree that, in the context of claim 1,
“output port” is a “component through which power from an internal power
supply is transmitted.”
Limitation 1F [“1.f” and “1.g”]
In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner proposes to construe
“element 1F” of claim 1. PO Resp. 12. Based on the discussion appearing
on pages 12–14 of the Patent Owner Response, it is clear that what Patent
Owner refers to as limitation 1F is actually the two limitations “1.f” and
“1.g” in the above-quoted text of claim 1. Id. at 12–14. That is confirmed
by the Patent Owner’s reproduction of the text of limitations “1.f” and “1.g”
in the Sur-Reply as what it refers to as limitation 1F. Sur-Reply 4–5. We
understand and treat Patent Owner as using the identification 1F to refer to
limitations “1.f” and “1.g.”
Limitation “1.f” reads as follows: “a microcontroller configured to
receive input signals from said vehicle isolation sensor and said reverse
polarity sensor, and to provide an output signal to said power switch.”
Ex. 1001, 8:23–26. Limitation “1.g” continues from limitation “1.f” and
adds:
such that said power switch is turned on to cause said internal
power supply to be connected to said output port in response to
signals from said sensors indicating the presence of a vehicle
battery at said output port and proper polarity connection of
positive and negative terminals of said vehicle battery with said
positive and negative polarity outputs, and is not turned on when
signals from said sensors indicate either the absence of a vehicle
battery at said output port or improper polarity connection of
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

15
positive and negative terminals of said vehicle battery with said
positive and negative polarity outputs.
Id. at 8:26–37.
Patent Owner asserts:
Element 1F can be thought of as comprising two limitations. The
first limitation describes the conditions necessary for the power
switch to be turned on, in response to the signals from the two
sensors. This can be referred to as the Trigger Limitation. The
second limitation describes how the power switch must remain
off if either sensor produces an incorrect signal. This can be
referred to as the Fail Safe Limitation. (Wood Decl. ¶61.)
PO Resp. 12. Patent Owner further asserts: “a proper interpretation of this
limitation gives weight not only to the circumstances in which the power
switch is turned on (closed), but the circumstances in which the power
switch must remain off (open).” Id. According to Patent Owner, referring
to this alleged “Fail Safe Limitation”:
What this means is that the microprocessor must verify
that neither sensor is providing an incorrect reading, not just
“before” turning the power switch on but when the power switch
is turned on. From a claim construction standpoint, therefore,
the Fail Safe Limitation should be interpreted to mean that “the
microprocessor verifies the presence of correct sensor signals
when it sends an output signal to close the power switch.”
(Wood Decl. ¶65.)
Id. at 13–14.
We do not disagree that limitation 1F logically or nominally can be
thought of as two limitations referred to by Patent Owner as a “Trigger” and
a “Fail Safe.” But they are two sides of the same coin, not a distinct
determination from each other. The same check could determine both.
Specifically, if a vehicle battery is absent, or if a vehicle battery is reverse
connected, then the Fail Safe condition is met to keep the microprocessor
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

16
from proceeding to close the switch, but at the same time the Trigger
condition is not met to trigger closing of the power switch. And if a vehicle
battery is present and properly connected, then the Fail Safe condition is not
met to keep the power switch from closing, but the Trigger condition is met
to trigger closing of the power switch. Thus, what Patent Owner refers to as
a “Trigger” and a “Fail Safe” need not be independent or distinct from each
other. Determination of one could determine the other. Regarding them
logically as two limitations does not require them to be independent of each
other. One test could determine both.
We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that based on the “Fail
Safe” limitation, “the microprocessor must verify that neither sensor is
providing an incorrect reading, not just ‘before’ turning the power switch on
but when the power switch is turned on.” PO Resp. 13. We also disagree
with Patent Owner’s contention that the microprocessor must perform the
Fail Safe test a second time to verify the presence of correct sensor signal
when, i.e., at the moment, it sends an output signal to close the power
switch. Id. at 14. For reasons discussed below, the claim does not require a
re-test or subsequent verification because at the time the Trigger condition is
met, for the microprocessor to be triggered to close the power switch, the
Fail Safe condition would not be met.
None of the claims recites a verification function that is carried out
subsequent to the microprocessor determining that a vehicle battery is
present and is properly connected and just prior to closing of the power
switch. The Specification of the ’015 patent also does not identify, refer to,
or discuss any “verification” function of the microprocessor subsequent to
its determining that a vehicle battery is present and is properly connected.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

17
Whatever unexpected condition that may occur between determining
the Trigger condition and actual closing of the power switch is, e.g., the
charging clamp falling off the vehicle battery for whatever reason, is
accepted in the context of the ’015 patent as a normal operational margin.
The ’015 patent does not demand or require absolute perfection, and it
reasonably could not. For instance, lightening could strike the connection,
or another vehicle may crash into the vehicle being charged. Both
circumstances can undo the proper connection that was previously made.
Patent Owner relies on paragraph 65 of Dr. Wood’s Declaration
(Ex. 2016). PO Resp. 13–14. Dr. Wood, however, provides no explanation
beyond referring to the claim language which, as we discussed above, does
not require subsequent verification. Ex. 2016 ¶ 65. Patent Owner also relies
on paragraph 63 of Dr. Wood’s Declaration. There, Dr. Wood refers to “the
importance of ensuring that the switch remains off whenever the sensors
indicate an error.” Ex. 2016 ¶ 63. But Dr. Wood does not explain why
absolute perfection, or a “guarantee,” is required by the claim, such that an
additional verification function is necessary after initially determining that
the conditions are proper for closing the power switch. Id.
Further, Mr. James Richard Stanfield, a named inventor of the ’015
patent, testified at deposition in this proceeding about the operation of the
disclosed device of the ’015 patent with regard to the turning on or not
turning on of the power switch on the basis of sensor inputs. Ex. 1049, 213–
214. We do not observe where Mr. Stanfield mentioned or discussed any
need or requirement to conduct subsequent verification at the exact moment
of closing the power switch, if a determination already has been made that
the conditions are proper for closing the power switch.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

18
Patent Owner asserts that the Fail Safe limitation was added during
prosecution to overcome prior art. Sur-Reply, 4. Petitioner does not
disagree. Reply, 2–3. We see Patent Owner’s noting that the limitation was
added to overcome prior art as urging that the limitation is significant and
cannot be ignored. We agree that it is significant and cannot be ignored.
But that does not mean it requires subsequent verification of the Trigger
condition at the time of actually closing the power switch, if it already has
been determined that the condition is appropriate for closing the power
switch. The limitation has significance in determining that only one of the
two sensors is providing an “OK” indication, and having that determination
would result in the microprocessor not proceeding to close the switch.
Without this limitation, it would still be OK for the microprocessor to
proceed to close the power switch if just one of the two sensors yields an
“OK” indication. Thus, we can accord weight to this recitation without
reading into the claims a subsequent verification requirement at the time of
closing the power switch, if it has already been determined that the
conditions are proper for closing the power switch.
Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s proposal is contrary to the
litigation position it has taken before a district court. Reply 4–5. Patent
Owner states that Petitioner only provided small excerpts of Patent Owner’s
expert report in related district court litigation, and that the bulk of the Patent
Owner’s expert report was designated “Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes
Only.” Paper 58, 9–10. Patent Owner further asserts that “the positions
taken by Patent Owner in its infringement litigations are fully consistent
with its position here.” Id. at 10. The evidence of record is insufficient for
us to find that Patent Owner’s position here contradicts the positions it has
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

19
taken in related infringement litigations. We do not so conclude.
Accordingly, the alleged inconsistency is not a reason we disagree with
Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction.
In summary, limitation 1F (1.f and 1.g) does not, as Patent Owner
contends, require that based on the Fail Safe limitation, “the microprocessor
must verify that neither sensor is providing an incorrect reading, not just
‘before’ turning the power switch on but when the power switch is turned
on.” PO Resp. 13. We conclude that no subsequent verification is required
once it has been determined that the condition is proper for closing the
power switch.
C. Alleged Anticipation of
Claims 1, 7, and 21 by Klang
1. The Law on Anticipation
To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference.
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2010); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed.
Cir. 2001). The applied reference “need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis
test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910
F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Identity of terminology between the
prior art reference and the claim is not required.
2. Overview of Klang
Klang relates to an apparatus and method for rapidly carrying out
diagnostic tests on lead-acid batteries and charging such batteries if
appropriate. Ex. 1007, 1:15–19. It relies on the known fact that battery
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

20
resistance can be characterized by discharging at various rates and
measuring the resulting voltage. Id. at 3:5–9. In that context, it was known
that current versus voltage relationship is linear and the proportionality
constant is the resistance of the battery in a discharging mode. Id. at 3:9–13.
Klang’s diagnostic test unit utilizes a charger combined with a rapidly
variable load controlled by signals to and from a microprocessor. Id. at
3:15–18. Figure 1 of Klang illustrates the diagnostic test unit and is
reproduced below:

Figure 1 is a block diagram of Klang’s diagnostic test unit. Id. at 3:66–67.
Among other steps, Klang describes determining whether a battery is
connected, and also whether the battery is connected in reverse polarity. Id.
at 8:55–65.

IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

21
Figure 2 illustrates the system controller and is reproduced below:

Figure 2 is a block diagram of a system controller, which includes
microprocessor 6, memory 28, and input/output circuitry 30. Id. at 5:27–29.
Input/Output circuitry 30 is coupled to operator input 32, and also display
34, which displays relevant output messages such as the status of diagnostic
testing or charging or a prompt for the operator to enter commands or data.
Id. at 5:34–39. Input/Output circuitry 30 is coupled to the power supply,
load 14, microprocessor 26, and sensors 24. Id. at 5:39–46.
Figure 3 illustrates sensors in the diagnostic unit and is reproduced
below:
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

22

Figure 3 is a block diagram of DC sensors for sensing voltage and current
across the battery terminals according to the Klang. Id. at 4:4–6. Voltage
sensor 46 measures the voltage across terminals 20 and 22 of battery 16. Id.
at 6:12–14. Reverse polarity sensor 48 also is connected across battery
terminals 20 and 22, and senses negative voltage indicating that the battery
leads are connected backwards. Id. at 6:20–22. Charging current sensor 42
and discharging current sensor 44 are connected to measure the current
across shunt resistor 50. Id. at 6:27–29. Charging current sensor 42
measures current flow into the battery. Id. at 6:30–32. Discharging current
sensor 44 is used to measure current flow out of the battery. Id. at 6:38–39.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

23
Figure 4 illustrates Klang’s variable power supply and load and is
reproduced below:

Figure 4 is a block diagram of a variable programmable DC power supply
and load for charging and discharging batteries. Id. at 4:7–9.
Variable programmable DC power supply and load 14 includes DC
power supply 52 and variable load 54. Id. at 6:47–49. The amount of
current or voltage supplied by power supply 14 is determined by system
controller 12, which sends commands to power supply 14. Id. at 6:52–54.
With regard to connecting the variable programmable power supply and load
to the vehicle battery, Klang describes as follows:
During the diagnostic test or charge, the system controller 12
may control means 56 such as a relay, a switch or the like to
automatically connect the battery 16 to the circuit. For example,
the switch 56 is open while measuring the open circuit voltage of
the system. Conversely, the switch 56 is closed allowing current
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

24
to flow across a shunt resistor 50 to enable charging, discharging
and current measurements to be taken.
Id. at 7:7–14.
3. Claim 1
Claim 1 begins with this recitation: “Apparatus for jump starting a
vehicle engine.” Ex. 1001, 8:4. Petitioner asserts that this preamble does
not limit the claim, because (1) it only recites an intended use of an
apparatus, (2) it imposes no structural requirement beyond those recited in
the body of the claim, (3) no argument depending on “jump starting a
vehicle engine” was made to overcome prior art during prosecution, and
(4) “jump starting a vehicle engine” does not provide antecedent basis for
anything in the body of the claim. Pet. 68. Patent Owner has not submitted
any contrary argument in this regard. We agree with Petitioner that the
recitation merely articulates an intended use, and, thus, is non-limiting. In
any event, satisfaction of all of the elements in the body of the claim, as
explained below, also would satisfy the intended use of “jump starting a
vehicle engine.”
Claim 1 recites “an internal power supply.” Id. at 8:6. Petitioner
asserts that Klang describes that its device includes an internal power
supply. Pet. 69–70 (citing Ex. 1007, 5:9–17). Patent Owner does not
dispute the assertion. Petitioner’s assertion is supported by the cited
description of Klang. Ex. 1007, 5:10–13. We are persuaded by Petitioner
that Klang’s device includes an internal power supply.
Claim 1 recites “an output port having positive and negative polarity
outputs.” Ex. 1001, 8:7–8. Petitioner asserts that Klang’s device includes
an output port having positive and negative polarity outputs through which
power from the internal power supply is transmitted. Pet. 71 (citing
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

25
Ex. 1007, Fig. 1, 5:17–19). Patent Owner does not dispute the assertion.
Petitioner’s assertion is supported by the cited description of Klang.
Ex. 1007, Fig. 1, 5:17–19. We are persuaded by Petitioner that Klang’s
device includes “an output port having positive and negative polarity
outputs.”
Claim 1 recites “a vehicle battery isolation sensor connected in circuit
with said positive and negative polarity outputs, configured to detect
presence of a vehicle battery connected between said positive and negative
polarity outputs.” Ex. 1001, 8:9–12. Petitioner cites to voltage sensor 46 of
Klang’s Figure 3 as meeting this limitation. Pet. 72–73. As illustrated,
voltage sensor 46 is connected to measure the voltage across terminals 20
and 22 of battery 16. Ex. 1007, Fig. 3.
Petitioner explains as follows: “The voltage sensor 46 detects the
presence of the battery 16 by detecting whether it is connected. ‘If the OCV
[open circuit voltage] is greater than -0.5V, at step 148, the OCV is
compared to an extremely low voltage to determine whether a battery is
connected.’” Pet. 73 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:55–58). Petitioner also explains
that Figure 3 of Klang shows voltage sensor 46 as separate from reverse
polarity sensor 48. Pet. 73. Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited
disclosures of Klang.
Patent Owner has not, in the Patent Owner Response, set forth
contrary arguments regarding this vehicle isolation sensor limitation. We
are persuaded by Petitioner that Klang’s device includes “a vehicle battery
isolation sensor connected in circuit with said positive and negative polarity
outputs, configured to detect presence of a vehicle battery connected
between said positive and negative polarity outputs.”
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

26
Claim 1 recites “a reverse polarity sensor connected in circuit with
said positive and negative polarity outputs, configured to detect polarity of a
vehicle battery connected between said positive and negative polarity
outputs and to provide an output signal indicating whether positive and
negative terminals of said vehicle battery are properly connected with said
positive and negative outputs of said output port.” Id. at 8:13–20. Petitioner
cites to reverse polarity sensor 48 of Klang’s Figure 3 as meeting this
limitation. Pet. 75–76. As illustrated, reverse polarity sensor 48 is
connected to measure the voltage across terminals 20 and 22 of battery 16.
Ex. 1007, Fig. 3.
Petitioner explains as follows:
Referring to FIG. 3, Klang states: “[t[he reverse polarity
sensor 48, connected in a like manner across the battery terminals
20, 22, senses negative voltage indicating that the battery leads
are connected backwards.” Ex. 1007, 6:20–23. Klang’s reverse
polarity sensor provides an output signal (sensed negative
voltage) indicating whether the battery has a proper polarity
connection. Klang states: “[i]f the start button has not been
pressed, at step 144, the OCV [battery open circuit voltage] is
compared to a low negative voltage to determine whether the
conducting cables 18 are properly connected to the battery 16. If
the OCV is less than -0.5V, the method proceeds at step 146 to
notify the operator that the leads are reversed.” Ex. 1007, 8:55–
60.
Pet. 75–76. Petitioner also explains that Figure 3 of Klang shows reverse
voltage sensor 48 as separate from voltage sensor 46. Pet. 76. Petitioner’s
assertions are supported by the cited disclosures of Klang.
Patent Owner has not, in the Patent Owner Response, set forth
contrary arguments regarding this reverse polarity sensor limitation. We are
persuaded by Petitioner that Klang’s device includes “a reverse polarity
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

27
sensor connected in circuit with said positive and negative polarity outputs,
configured to detect polarity of a vehicle battery connected between said
positive and negative polarity outputs and to provide an output signal
indicating whether positive and negative terminals of said vehicle battery are
properly connected with said positive and negative outputs of said output
port.”
Claim 1 recites “a power switch connected between said internal
power supply and said output port.” Ex. 1001, 8:21–22. Citing Figure 4 of
Klang, Petitioner asserts that “Klang discloses a switch 56 connected
between the power supply 52 and the leads (output port) connected to the
battery 16.” Pet. 77. Petitioner explains that “[d]uring the diagnostic test or
charge, the system controller 12 may control means 56 such as a relay, a
switch or the like to automatically connect the battery 16 to the circuit. . . .”
Id. at 77–78 (citing Ex. 1007, 7:7–14). Patent Owner does not dispute the
assertions. Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited disclosures of
Klang. We are persuaded by Petitioner that Klang’s device includes “a
power switch connected between said internal power supply and said output
port.”
Claim 1 recites limitation “1.f”: “a microcontroller configured to
receive input signals from said vehicle isolation sensor and said reverse
polarity sensor, and to provide an output signal to said power switch.”
Ex. 1001, 8:23–26. Petitioner identifies Klang’s system controller 12,
shown in Figure 1, as the claimed microcontroller. Pet. 78–79. Figure 1,
illustrating Klang’s test unit, is reproduced below:
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

28

Figure 1 is a block diagram of Klang’s diagnostic test unit. Ex. 1007, 3:66–
67. Klang describes that “[t]he DC sensors [including voltage sensor 46 and
reverse polarity sensor 48 shown in Klang’s Figure 3], which sense current
and voltage across the battery terminals 20, 22, return the values thereof to
the system controller 12 to which they are coupled.” Id. at 5:22–25 (cited by
Petitioner at Pet. 79). Klang further describes that the system controller 12
is coupled to the power supply 14 and includes control circuitry for
regulating the output of power supply 14.” Id. at 5:13–16 (cited by
Petitioner at Pet. 78). Petitioner notes that power switch 56 is within
variable programmable DC power supply/load 14, citing Figure 4 of Klang.
Pet. 78. These assertions are supported by the cited disclosures of Klang.
Claim 1, further with respect to operation of the claimed
microcontroller, recites limitation “1.g”:
such that said power switch is turned on to cause said internal
power supply to be connected to said output port in response to
signals from said sensors indicating the presence of a vehicle
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

29
battery at said output port and proper polarity connection of
positive and negative terminals of said vehicle battery with said
positive and negative polarity outputs, and is not turned on when
signals from said sensors indicate either the absence of a vehicle
battery at said output port or improper polarity connection of
positive and negative terminals of said vehicle battery with said
positive and negative polarity outputs.
Ex. 1001, 8:26–37.
Figure 5 is a logical flow diagram illustrating the steps in the overall
performing the diagnostic battery test and battery charging procedures
according to Klang. Ex. 1007, 4:10–12; 7:49–57. Figure 6 is a logical flow
diagram more particularly illustrating the start-up portion of Klang’s
procedure. Id. at 4:13–15. Petitioner refers to the flow charts shown in
Klang’s Figures 5 and 6. Pet. 84–85. Box 102, immediately after “START”
box 100, is labeled “START UP PROCEDURE (CONNECT AND INPUT
BATTERY PARAMETERS).” Ex. 1007, Fig. 5. Petitioner asserts that in
step 102, the start-up procedure is invoked “wherein proper connection of
the battery to the diagnostic unit is verified.” Pet. 83 (citing Ex. 1007, 7:49–
57). Petitioner further notes that the “start-up” process is more particularly
illustrated in Figure 6 of Klang. Id.
A pertinent part of Figure 5, illustrating the overall procedure
according to Klang, from starting up the device at step 100 to starting to
charge a depleted battery at step 114, is reproduced below:
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

30

Figure 5 is a logic flow diagram illustrating the steps involved in performing
the diagnostic battery test and battery charge procedure of Klang. Ex. 1007,
4:10–12.
A pertinent portion of Figure 6, illustrating the particulars of the start-
up procedure relied on by Petitioner, is reproduced below:

Figure 6 shows the logic flow of the steps involved in starting up Klang’s
diagnostic tester and charging system. Ex. 1007, 4:14–16.
Klang describes that, at step 144, a determination is made and if OCV
is less than –0.5V, “the method proceeds at step 146 to notify the operator
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

31
that the leads are reversed.” Ex. 1007, 8:55–60 (cited by Petitioner at Pet.
86). Klang describes that, at step 148, a determination is made and if OCV
is less than 0.3V, “indicating that a battery is not connected, the method
proceeds at step 150 to display a message instructing the operator to connect
the cables.” Ex. 1007, 8:60–65 (cited by Petitioner at Pet. 86). Referring to
the flow diagram of Figure 5, Petitioner explains that it is only after the start-
up process of Figure 6 has been completed that logic flow returns to the path
in Figure 5 and then at step 114 in Figure 5, “the charger will be turned on
and the battery will be charged.” Pet. 83 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:5–8).
On the basis of the foregoing, Petitioner contends that Klang discloses
the above-quoted limitation regarding the microcontroller, where the power
switch is turned on “in response to signals from said sensors indicating the
presence of a vehicle battery at said output port and proper polarity
connection of positive and negative terminals of said vehicle battery with
said positive and negative polarity outputs,” and is not turned on “when
signals from said sensors indicate either the absence of a vehicle battery at
said output port or improper polarity connection of positive and negative
terminals of said vehicle battery with said positive and negative polarity
outputs.” Pet. 82. Petitioner’s position is supported by the cited disclosures
of Klang.
Notwithstanding contrary argument of Patent Owner with respect to
limitations “1.f” and “1.g,” which Patent Owner refers to as limitation 1F,
discussed below, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Klang discloses
limitation 1F (limitations “1.f” and “1.g”).
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

32
Patent Owner relies on the complete flow chart in Figure 6 of Klang.
PO Resp. 47–48. The complete chart of Figure 6, color annotated by Patent
Owner, is reproduced below:

IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

33
Figure 6 is a logic flow diagram illustrating the steps in starting up Klang’s
diagnostic tester and charging system. Ex. 1007, 4:14–16.
Patent Owner argues that the complete flow chart in Figure 6 of Klang
shows that power switch 56, a solenoid, is closed at step 164, upon detecting
that the START button has been pressed by the operator, and thus the power
switch is turned on in response to the operator pressing the START button,
not “in response to signals from said sensors indicating the presence of a
vehicle battery at said output port and proper polarity connection of positive
and negative terminals of said vehicle battery with said positive and negative
polarity outputs” as claimed. P.O. Resp. 49–50 (emphasis omitted).
Patent Owner asserts that “[e]ven assuming that Klang disclosed
every other limitation of claim 1, Klang is explicit that the solenoid switch is
instructed to close in response to manual intervention of the user —
specifically when the user presses the start button.” Id. at 50. Patent Owner
further asserts that “[n]either the Petition nor Petitioner’s expert address the
explicit disclosure that the Klang controller turns on the solenoid in response
to manual intervention of the user.” Id. Patent Owner states that “Klang is
explicit that once the user presses the start button (step 162), the solenoid is
closed (step 164).” Id. at 51. Patent Owner further asserts that “[t]here is no
suggestion that the controller turns on the solenoid in response to either, let
alone both, of these signals as required by claim 1.” Id.
Patent Owner’s argument is misplaced and an over-simplification of
the operative steps of Klang. The pertinent disclosure of Klang is this:
Once critical battery information is input into the system,
at step 160 the operator is prompted to press start. The method
then waits at step 162 until start is pressed . . . . Thereafter,
commands are sent to close the solenoid switch 56 to allow
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

34
current flow into the battery, to turn the charger on, and to set the
start the system timer.
Ex. 1007, 9:45–54. Although it is true that the system prompts the operator
to press the START button and waits for the START button to be pressed,
that is not inconsistent with turning on the power switch in response to
signals indicating presence of the vehicle battery and proper polarity
connection to the vehicle battery.
As shown in Figure 6, step 160 is not reached until and unless the
system has passed through steps 144 and 148, discussed above, which verify
that vehicle battery leads are not reverse connected and that a vehicle battery
is present, respectively. Thus, the closing of the solenoid or turning on of
power switch 56 is in response to signals indicating presence of the vehicle
battery and proper polarity connection of the vehicle battery and also to the
operator pressing the START button upon being prompt to do so at step 160.
The recitation in the claim of “in response to” does not restrict the
triggering sources of the response to “only” those specifically identified in
the claim and nothing else. In this circumstance, the closing of the switch is
in response to all three conditions, i.e., signal indicating presence of the
vehicle battery, signal indicating proper polarity connection of the vehicle
battery, and pressing of the START button by operator upon prompting.
That meets the claim requirement of turning on the power switch in response
to signals indicating presence of the vehicle battery and proper polarity
connection of the vehicle battery.
Patent Owner further argues:
In Klang, although the device does not prompt the operator to
press start until after it has received correct signals from the two
sensors, there is nothing that requires the operator to press start
within a certain period of time. (Wood Decl. ¶ 113.) Instead,
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

35
the system enters into wait loop until the button is pressed.
Ex. 2017, Kirtley Dep., at 158.
While the system is in wait mode, it is entirely possible
that the cables on the battery to be charged could become
dislodged, or even, due to negligence or malfeasance, reversed.
(Wood Decl. ¶ 113.) In fact, Dr. Kirtley confirmed this aspect
of Klang:
Q: . . . [I]s there anything in Klang that discloses
that the system retests the battery connections at any
time after the start prompt is given?
A: I am not sure of such.
Ex. 2017, Kirtley Dep., at 160–61.
Because Klang does not verify that the sensors are still
providing correct signals after the button is pressed, Klang does
not ensure that the power switch is not closed when the signal
from either of the sensors is incorrect. Klang thus fails to meet
the Fail Safe Limitation and does not anticipate claim 1.
PO Resp. 52.
In Section II.B. above, we construed what Patent Owner regards as
Limitation 1F (reproduced above as limitations “1.f” and “1.g”). We
explained and determined that to meet the limitation, no verification is
necessary at the time of microprocessor’s closing of the power switch, so
long as it has already been determined that the conditions are appropriate for
the microprocessor to close the power switch. Thus, for Klang to meet the
limitation, no retest or verification is necessary after the microprocessor
prompts the operator to press the START button. Limitation 1F, as properly
construed, tolerates possible anomalies which are unplanned.
Patent Owner asserts, and we agree, that it is “possible” that
something could happen between the time that the conditions are determined
as appropriate for closing the power switch and the time that the
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

36
microprocessor actually closes the power switch. But that amounts to mere
speculation which does not render Klang’s disclosure inapplicable. As noted
above in our claim construction discussion, the claim does not require
absolute perfection or a guarantee that something unplanned does not occur.
Furthermore, Klang does not include any mention of the operator,
upon being prompted to press the START button, not immediately or as
soon as practicable, press the START button. Nothing is described for the
operator, when prompted, to do anything other than pressing the START
button. Klang’s Figure 6 shows a flow chart in which in Box 160 the
operator is prompted to press the START button, and in the very next Box,
Box 162, a check is made to see if the operator has pressed the START
button. Ex. 1007, Fig. 6. Patent Owner’s assertion that something possibly
could happen between the time the operator is prompted and the time the
operator presses the START button is high speculative and insufficient to
render limitation 1F not satisfied. Possibility is not a proper test. In that
regard, we note that a system malfunction possibly can occur at all times,
despite having the best of designs, and that should not render a prior art
reference disclosure inapplicable if it does not meet the claim when the
described apparatus malfunctions.
In any event, in Klang’s typical case that is the subject of Klang’s
description, the state of the system does not change before the user presses
the START button such that the Fail-Safe condition would no longer be
satisfied if re-tested. Rather, if at all, it would only be in atypical cases
where the system state might change. Thus, we find that, in its description
of its typical operation, Klang discloses a system that satisfies both the
Trigger and Fail-Safe conditions before and at the time the START button is
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

37
pressed. Accordingly, Klang discloses limitation “1.g” even under Patent
Owner’s construction of this limitation. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek
Sys., Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1325 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The anticipation
analysis asks solely whether the prior art reference discloses and enables the
claimed invention, and not how the prior art characterizes that disclosure or
whether alternatives are also disclosed.”).
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has proved by a preponderance
of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by Klang.
4. Claims 7 and 21
Claims 17 and 21 each depend from claim 1, and thus incorporate all
of the limitations of claim 1. 35 U.S.C. § 112(d). Claim 17 additionally
recites “further comprising a visual indicator configured to warn a user when
the vehicle battery is connected with reverse polarity.” Ex. 1001, 9:17–19.
Claim 21 additionally recites “further comprising a jumper cable device
including a plug configured to plug into said output port, a pair of cables
integrated with the plug at one respective end thereof and being configured
to be connected to terminals of a battery at another respective end thereof.”
Id. at 10:10–4.
With respect to claim 17, Petitioner explains as follows:
Klang states “[i]f the start button has not been pressed, at
step 144, the OCV is compared to a low negative voltage to
determine whether the conducting cables 18 are properly
connected to the battery 16. If the OCV is less than –0.5V, the
method proceeds at step 146 to notify the operator that the leads
are reversed.
Pet. 87. Petitioner further asserts that Klang discloses outputting such
messages on a visual display. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 5:34–39). The assertion
is supported by the cited disclosure of Klang, which states: “The I/O
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

38
circuitry 30 is also coupled to a display 34 that comprises the means to
display relevant output messages, such as messages informing the operator
on the status of diagnostic testing or charging, or messages prompting the
operator to enter commands or data.” Ex. 1007, 5:34–39. Further, Klang
states that “the method proceeds at step 146 [Fig. 6] to notify the operator
that the leads are reversed.” Id. at 8:59–60 (cited by Petitioner at Pet. 87).
Petitioner notes that in Figure 6, step 146 identifies the text “REVERSED
LEADS / RECONNECT” in quotations, which further indicates that the text
is displayed to the operator. Pet. 87–88.
Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited disclosures of Klang.
Patent Owner does not present counter-arguments with respect to claim 17,
other than those already discussed above in the context of claim 1. We are
persuaded by Petitioner that Klang discloses that its device includes “a
visual indicator configured to warn a user when the vehicle battery is
connected with reverse polarity.”
With respect to claim 21, Petitioner identifies jumper cable 18
illustrated in Figure 3 of Klang as the claimed jumper cable device. Pet. 88.
Petitioner cites to the following description in Klang: “The power supply
and load 14 are coupled in a conventional manner to a battery 16 using
conducting cables 18 which link the power supply and load 14 to the
charging terminals 20, 22 of the battery 16.” Ex. 1007, 5:17–20 (cited at
Pet. 88).
Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited disclosures of Klang.
Patent Owner does not present counter-arguments with respect to claim 21,
other than those already discussed above in the context of claim 1. We are
persuaded by Petitioner that Klang discloses that its device includes “a
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

39
jumper cable device including a plug configured to plug into said output
port, a pair of cables integrated with the plug at one respective end thereof
and being configured to be connected to terminals of a battery at another
respective end thereof.”
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has proved by a preponderance
of the evidence that claims 7 and 21 are anticipated by Klang.
D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 4 and 5 over Klang and Krieger
1. The Law on Obviousness
A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
(1966).
2. Overview of Krieger
Krieger relates to a booster device used for boosting a depleted
battery, and in particular to microprocessor control of the booster apparatus
and a polarity protection circuit. Ex. 1009 ¶ 2. Krieger discloses a polarity
protection circuit that is electrically connected to the battery to be charged,
the depleted battery, and to a boosting battery or other power source. Id.
¶ 10. Figure 1 of Krieger is a schematic diagram and is reproduced below:
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

40

Figure 1 of Krieger is a circuit schematic illustrating a polarity
protection circuit. Ex. 1009 ¶ 22. Krieger describes “[t]he switch 12 is
activated to complete a boosting circuit between the boosting battery 2 and
the depleted battery 11 only when a correct polarity connection between the
batteries is attained.” Id. ¶ 29.
3. Claims 4 and 55
Claims 4 and 5 each depend from claim 1, and thus incorporate all of
the limitations of claim 1. 35 U.S.C. § 112(d). Claim 4 further recites
“wherein said power switch comprises a plurality of FETs in parallel.”
Ex. 1001, 8:43–44. Claim 5 further recites “wherein said vehicle isolation
sensor and reverse polarity sensor comprise optically coupled isolator
phototransistors.” Id. at 8:45–47.
With respect to claim 4, Petitioner asserts that Krieger discloses a
power switch comprising a plurality of FETs in parallel. Pet. 47. Petitioner

5 For claims 4 and 5, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of
obviousness for consideration. See PO Resp. 41–46.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

41
cites the following disclosure of Krieger: “The [power] switch 12 is
preferabl[y] a solid state device, such as a transistor, diode, field effect
transistor (FET), etc. FIG. 1 represents the switch 12 as a number [of] FETs
12a–12d connected in parallel with each other.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 0030 (cited by
Petitioner at Pet. 47). The assertions of Petitioner are supported by the cited
disclosures of Krieger. Patent Owner does not present contrary arguments
with respect to these assertions.
Petitioner notes that Krieger explains that by using a solid state switch
comprising FETs, “[t]here is no need for any mechanical or electro-
mechanical devices.” Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 33). Petitioner explains,
citing the testimony of Dr. Kirtley, that “[s]ubstituting a relay switch in
[Klang’s] jump starter with a solid state switch comprising a plurality of
FETs would have been obvious to a POSITA to avoid or reduce electro-
mechanical components, as suggested by Krieger.” Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1002
¶ 144). Patent Owner does not present contrary arguments with regard to
Petitioner’s articulated reasoning for substituting Klang’s relay with
Krieger’s solid state power switch. Petitioner’s articulated reasoning has
rational underpinning. We are persuaded by Petitioner that it would have
been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to substitute Klang’s relay
switch with Krieger’s solid state switch.
With respect to claim 5, Petitioner asserts that Krieger discloses a
vehicle isolation sensor and reverse polarity sensor comprising an optically
coupled phototransistor. Pet. 49. Petitioner cites the following disclosure of
Krieger: “In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the polarity sensing circuit
comprises an opto-isolator 16. The opto-isolator 16 comprises a
phototransistor 22 and a light emitting diode (LED) 26.” Id. (citing
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

42
Ex. 1009 ¶ 0032). Petitioner also asserts that “Krieger uses the opto-isolator
16 to perform the functions of both the vehicle isolation sensor and reverse
polarity sensor.” Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 0033). These assertions of
Petitioner are supported by the cited disclosures of Krieger. Patent Owner
does not present contrary arguments with respect to these assertions.
Petitioner asserts that in light of Krieger’s disclosure, it would have
been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art “to use one opto-isolator to
sense the presence of a vehicle battery and a correct polarity connection, or
two opto-isolators if a POSITA wanted to use one for battery detection and
another for polarity connection, e.g., for redundancy.” Id. at 50–51.
Regarding reasons to apply Krieger’s teachings in Klang, Petitioner explains
as follows:
A POSITA would be particularly motivated to use opto-
couplers of the type [disclosed] by Krieger for sensing the
presence of a vehicle battery and a correct polarity connection
because the opto-coupler used in Krieger is an inherently digital
device that can be preferable over using analog inputs to the
system microcontroller, which may be subject to tests to
determine if the vehicle battery is present or reversed. A
POSITA would be motivated to simplify the system by using an
optical coupler for one or both sensing functions, e.g., to provide
a compact, packaged jump starter. Ex. 1002, ¶ 150.
Pet. 51. Petitioner’s assertion is supported by the cited testimony of
Dr. Kirtley and has rational underpinning. Ex. 1002 ¶ 150. Patent Owner
does not present contrary arguments with regard to Petitioner’s articulated
reasoning for constituting each of Klang’s vehicle isolation sensor and
reverse polarity sensor with an optically coupled isolator phototransistor.
We are persuaded by Petitioner that, in light of Krieger, it would have been
obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to implement Klang’s vehicle
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

43
isolation sensor and reverse polarity sensor with optically coupled isolator
phototransistors.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Patent Owner presents only the same
argument it asserts with respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed
and rejected above. PO Resp. 53–54. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner
has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4 and 5 are
unpatentable over Klang and Krieger.
E. Alleged Obviousness of Claim 22 over Klang and Richardet
1. Overview of Richardet
Richardet relates to a battery terminal connector that provides a secure
and stable connection to a motor vehicle battery. Ex. 1014, 1:60–65.
Richardet also relates to providing a temporary clamping attachment to a
charging battery to jump-start a car. Id. at 2:32–36. Petitioner cites to
Figure 2A of Richardet, illustrating a battery connector assembly,
reproduced below:

IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

44
Figure 2A is a perspective view of a battery connector assembly portion 20
of a quick-release battery cable system 10. Ex. 1014, 3:5–7. Richardet
describes:
The battery connector assembly 20 comprises a first fastener 21,
a pair of battery ring terminals 23, a negative battery cable 24, a
positive battery cable 25, and an accessory connector 28. The
battery ring terminals 23 provide an attachment means thereto a
positive battery terminal 120 and a negative battery terminal 130
thereon a primary battery 100 (see FIG. 3). The battery ring
terminals are attached to appropriately gauged battery cables 24,
25 comprising heavy gauged battery cables 24, 25 comprising
heavily gauged conductors being approximately five (5) feet
long.
Id. at 4:57–63 (cited by Petitioner at Pet. 65–66).
2. Claim 226
Claim 22 depends from claim 21, which depends from claim 1, and
thus incorporates all of the limitations of claims 1 and 21. 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(d). Claim 22 further recites “wherein said jumper cable device further
comprises a pair of ring terminals configured to respectively connect said
pair of cables at said another end thereof with one of a battery terminal and a
battery terminal clamp.” Ex. 1001, 10:15–19.
Petitioner asserts that Richardet discloses a pair of ring terminals 23 to
connect a pair pf cables 24, 25 with battery terminals 120 and 130. Pet. 66.
The assertion is supported by the cited disclosures of Richardet, and Patent
Owner does not present contrary arguments with respect to the assertion.
We are persuaded that Richardet discloses a pair of ring terminals as recited
by claim 22.

6 For claim 22, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of
obviousness for consideration. See PO Resp. 41–46.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

45
Petitioner notes that Richardet states, with respect to preexisting
systems, that there is a need for a means to “provide a battery terminal
connection which provides secure and stable connection to a motor vehicle
battery or the like adaptable to a variety of common scenarios and which is
simple and quick for an average user.” Pet. 67 (citing Ex. 1014, 1:59–65).
Petitioner asserts that using Richardet’s cable system with ring terminals in
Klang’s battery charger would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill
in the art “to provide a secure and stable connection to a motor vehicle
battery in a way that is simple and quick for an average user, as suggested by
Richardet.” Pet. 92. The assertion is supported by the testimony of
Dr. Kirtley and has rational underpinning. Ex. 1002 ¶ 203. Patent Owner
does not present any contrary argument in this regard. We are persuaded
that one with ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to use
Richardet’s cable system with ring terminals in Klang’s battery charger.
With respect to claim 22, Patent Owner presents only the same
argument it asserts with respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed
and rejected above. PO Resp. 54. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 22 is unpatentable
over Klang and Richardet.
F. Alleged Obviousness of Claim 23 over Klang and Lei
1. Overview of Lei
Lei discloses an emergency power source that outputs a high current
for starting a vehicle. Ex. 1008, 2:7–9. The emergency power source
includes a battery pack. Id. at 2:13–14. Output terminals of the battery pack
are connected to a high current outputting circuit for outputting a high
current used for starting a vehicle. Id. at 2:17–20. An external smart battery
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

46
detection system is connected between the battery pack and the high current
outputting circuit. Id. at 2:23–25.
2. Claim 237
Claim 23 depends from claim 21, which depends from claim 1, and
thus incorporates all of the limitations of claims 1 and 21. 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(d). Claim 23 further recites “wherein said output port and said plug
are dimensioned so that the plug will fit into the output port only in one
specific orientation.” Ex. 1001, 10:20–22.
Petitioner asserts that Lei discloses a jumper cable device having a
plug that fits into an output port only in one specific orientation. Pet. 45
(citing Ex. 1008, 7:65–8:35). The assertion is supported by the cited
disclosure of Lei. In particular, Lei describes that a red power source clip
and a black power source clip are used for connecting to an external battery.
Ex. 1008, 7:65–67. Also, Lei describes that the red and black power source
clips are connected, at the other end, to the battery pack “through an anti-
reverse connector connected to the positive and negative electrodes of the
battery pack 4.” Id. at 8:10–14 (emphasis added). Dr. Kirtley testifies that
“[t]he insertable anti-reverse connector disclosed by Lei comprises a plug
that can fit into the output port only in the correct orientation, not a reversed
connection.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 131.
Patent Owner does not present contrary arguments with respect to the
assertion. We are persuaded that Lei discloses a jumper cable device having
a plug that fits into an output port only in one specific orientation.

7 For claim 23, Patent Owner has not submitted objective evidence of
nonobviousness for consideration. See PO Resp. 41–46.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

47
Petitioner asserts that one with ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to incorporate the insertable anti-reverse connector of Lei in
Klang’s battery charging system “for safety or convenience for the user.”
Pet. 92. Patent Owner has not presented contrary argument in that regard.
We find Petitioner’s proposed reasoning is based on rational underpinning.
With respect to claim 23, Patent Owner presents only the same
argument it asserts with respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed
and rejected above. PO Resp. 55. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 23 is unpatentable
over Klang and Lei.
G. Alleged Anticipation of Claims 1, 7–9, 15, and 17–21 by Richardson
1. Overview of Richardson
Richardson relates to a portable power source to provide supplemental
power to start internal combustion and turbine engines. Ex. 1006 ¶ 2. As
background, Richardson describes that internal combustion and turbine
engines require a power source to start, and that commonly this power
source is in the form of a battery. Id. ¶ 3. Richardson further describes that
if the battery lacks sufficient power to start the engine, a supplemental power
source is necessary to jump start the engine, and that, typically, “jumper
cables are used to connect the battery of one vehicle to the dead battery of
another vehicle needing to be jumped.” Id. ¶ 4. Richardson discloses an
apparatus and method for temporarily delivering supplemental power to the
electrical system of a vehicle. Id. ¶ 6. A preferred embodiment is a portable
supplemental power source, also called a “jump starter,” illustrated in Figure
1, which is reproduced below:
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

48

Figure 1 is a functional block diagram of Richardson’s portable jump starter.
Id. ¶ 8.
Jump starter 10 includes programmable microprocessor 12, which
receives input 14 and produces informational outputs 16 and control outputs
18. Id. ¶ 14. Control outputs 18 include contact relay control output 58,
which operates contact relay 34 through temperature sensor 41. Id. ¶ 21.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

49
Shunt cable 36 connects capacitors 21 and batteries 22 to control relay 34.
Id. ¶ 16. “When the jump starter operation has been successfully initiated,
the contact relay 34 is closed and the jump starter capacitors 21 and batteries
22 are connected to the starter system or batteries of the vehicle to be
started.” Id. ¶ 21.
Battery voltage sensor 20 monitors the voltage level of one or more
internal batteries 22; reverse voltage sensor 24 monitors the polarity of the
jumper cables on line 26; vehicle voltage sensor 30 monitors the voltage on
line 37, which reflects the voltage of the vehicle battery. Id. ¶ 16. Capacitor
voltage sensor monitors the voltage level of one or more capacitors 21. Id.
¶ 15. Battery temperature sensor 38 monitors the temperature of the jump
starter’s batteries 22 to detect overheating due to excess current draw from
the batteries during jump starting, and shunt cable temperature sensor 40
monitors the temperature of shunt cable 36 to detect overheating of the
cable. Id. ¶ 17. Automatic mode push button 42 is provided to set the jump
starter in automatic mode of operation, and manual mode push button 44 is
provided to set the jump starter in manual mode of operation. Id.
LCD display 46 displays user instructions, error messages, and real-
time sensor data during operation. Id. ¶ 20.
2. Claim 1
At the outset, we eliminate an issue we raised, sua sponte, in the
Decision on Institution. It relates to limitation “1.g” and we determined that
paragraph 27 of Richardson does not support Petitioner’s assertion that in
Richardson “the power switch for charging the vehicle battery cannot be
turned on unless there is a proper polarity connection of the cables.” Paper
20, 18 (citing Petition at 26). Paragraph 27 of Richardson indicates that if a
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

50
battery is not already charging, then it is determined whether the vehicle
battery is reverse connected. Ex. 1006 ¶ 27. We read that “battery” as the
vehicle battery, because, logically, if the battery is not charging when it is
supposed to be charging then it may be because it was reverse connected.
Decision on Institution 18–19. After institution of review, however, both
Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that that “battery” in paragraph 27 of
Richardson does not refer to the vehicle battery, but to the internal batteries
of the charger itself. Tr. 63:17–64:8. Thus, paragraph 27 of Richardson is
not inconsistent with Petitioner’s contentions regarding how Richardson
meets limitation “1.g.” The matter is no longer an issue for discussion and
resolution.
Claim 1 begins with this recitation: “Apparatus for jump starting a
vehicle engine.” Ex. 1001, 8:4. Petitioner asserts that Richardson discloses
an apparatus for jump starting a vehicle engine, citing paragraphs 2 and 7 of
Richardson. Pet. 13. Richardson states: “The present invention relates to a
portable power source for a motor vehicle and, more particularly, to a
method and apparatus to provide supplemental power to start internal
combustion and turbine engines.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 2. Richardson further states:
“The system includes one or more internal batteries and capacitors to
provide the power to the battery of the vehicle to be jump started.” Id. ¶ 7.
Patent Owner has not presented a contrary argument. We are persuaded that
Richardson discloses an apparatus for jump starting a vehicle engine.
Claim 1 recites “an internal power supply.” Ex. 1001, 8:6. Petitioner
asserts that Richardson’s Figure 1 identifies Jump Starter Batteries 22 as the
internal power supply of the charging apparatus. Pet. 13. Also, Richardson
states: “The system includes one or more internal batteries and capacitors to
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

51
provide the power to the battery of the vehicle to be jump started.” Ex. 1006
¶ 7 (cited at Pet. 13). Further, Richardson states: “A battery voltage sensor
20 monitors the voltage level of one or more jump starter batteries 22.” Id.
¶ 16 (cited at Pet. 13). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion
that Richardson’s charging apparatus includes an internal power supply.
We are persuaded by Petitioner that Richardson’s charging apparatus
includes an internal power supply.
Claim 1 recites “an output port having positive and negative polarity
outputs.” Ex. 1001, 8:7–8. Petitioner explains that Richardson discloses
conductive leads connected to jumper cables having positive and negative
polarity outputs through which power from the internal power supply is
transmitted. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1006, Abstr., Claim 1). Patent Owner does
not dispute Petitioner’s assertion that Richardson discloses “an output port
having positive and negative polarity outputs.” We are persuaded by
Petitioner that Richardson’s charging apparatus includes “an output port
having positive and negative polarity outputs.”
Claim 1 recites “a vehicle battery isolation sensor connected in circuit
with said positive and negative polarity outputs, configured to detect
presence of a vehicle battery connected between said positive and negative
polarity outputs.” Ex. 1001, 8:9–12.
Petitioner asserts:
Richardson discloses a “vehicle voltage sensor 30 monitors the
voltage on line 37 (voltage of the vehicle).” Ex. 1006, ¶ 0016.
Shown in FIG. 2C of Richardson below, the line 37 is connected
in series with said positive and negative polarity outputs, such
that the vehicle voltage sensor can detect presence of a vehicle
battery connected between said positive and negative polarity
outputs. Ex. 1002, ¶ 65.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

52

Pet. 17. Figure 2C of Richardson is a partial schematic diagram of
Richardson’s supplemental power charging apparatus for an engine.
Ex. 1006 ¶ 9. Petitioner further refers to Figure 1 of Richardson which
shows vehicle voltage sensor 30 as a separate sensor from reverse voltage
sensor 24. Pet. 17–18.
Petitioner’s position is that the sensor’s detecting a voltage indicates
the presence of a vehicle battery, and the sensor’s not detecting a voltage
indicates absence of a battery. Petitioner states: “The process of sensing the
voltage of the vehicle battery by the vehicle voltage sensor 30 necessarily
involves detecting the presence or absence of the vehicle battery since a
reading of zero volts would indicate the absence of a battery.” Pet. 30.
The parties’ expert witnesses, Dr. Kirtley for Petitioner and Dr. Wood
for Patent Owner, agree that for a 12 volt vehicle battery, Richardson’s
vehicle battery sensor 30 outputs approximately 0.7 volts to the
microcontroller when the battery is present, and approximately 0.032 volts
to the microcontroller when the battery is not present. Ex. 1050 ¶¶ 113,
156–71; Ex. 1017, 120:6–15. Although 0.032 volts is not precisely zero as
Petitioner contends in the Petition, the point made is the same, i.e., detecting
almost zero voltage indicates absence of a battery.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

53
Petitioner’s counsel confirmed, at oral hearing, that it is Petitioner’s
position that an output of approximately 0.032 volts indicates absence of a
vehicle battery, and an output of approximately 0.7 volts indicates presence
of a vehicle battery. Tr. 28:15–26. Patent Owner has not presented a
contrary argument to refute this assertion which is supported by the
testimony of both Dr. Kirtley and Dr. Wood.
We determine Petitioner has shown that Richardson’s vehicle voltage
sensor 30 is “a vehicle battery isolation sensor connected in circuit with said
positive and negative polarity outputs, configured to detect presence of a
vehicle battery connected between said positive and negative polarity
outputs” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “a reverse polarity sensor connected in circuit with
said positive and negative polarity outputs, configured to detect polarity of a
vehicle battery connected between said positive and negative polarity
outputs and to provide an output signal indicating whether positive and
negative terminals of said vehicle battery are properly connected with said
positive and negative outputs of said output port.” Id. at 8:13–20.
Petitioner notes that Richardson’s Figure 1 illustrates reverse polarity
sensor 24 which is separate from vehicle voltage sensor. Pet. 18–19.
Petitioner explains:
Richardson states the “reverse voltage sensor 24 monitors
the polarity of the jumper cables on line 26 which are connected
to the vehicle’s electrical system 28.” Ex. 1006, ¶ 0016. “A
reverse voltage LED 48 is illuminated when the microprocessor
12 determines that a reverse voltage jumper cable voltage is
detected by reverse voltage sensor 24.” Ex. 1006, ¶ 0020. “If
the system does not detect a battery charging voltage 212, once
jumper cables 60 have been manually connected to the vehicle to
be started 28, the voltage is measured by the reverse voltage
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

54
sensor 24 to determine if the cables have been properly
connected to the vehicle 214. If the voltage measured is
significantly less than the voltage of the jump starter capacitors
21 and batteries 22, then a reverse polarity connection of the
jumper cables to the vehicle is determined and an error flag is set
and the event saved in non-volatile memory 216. A “Reverse
Polarity” error message is displayed 218 on the LCD 46, and the
reverse voltage LED 48 is illuminated 216.” Richardson
Ex. 1006, ¶ 0027.
Pet. 20. Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited evidence. Patent
Owner does not present contrary arguments in this regard.
We determine Petitioner has shown that Richardson’s reverse voltage
sensor 24 is “a reverse polarity sensor connected in circuit with said positive
and negative polarity outputs, configured to detect polarity of a vehicle
battery connected between said positive and negative polarity outputs and to
provide an output signal indicating whether positive and negative terminals
of said vehicle battery are properly connected with said positive and
negative outputs of said output port.”
Claim 1 recites “a power switch connected between said internal
power supply and said output port.” Ex. 1001, 8:21–22. Petitioner asserts
that Richardson discloses a power switch connected between the batteries 22
as internal power supply and the leads which serve as output port. Pet. 20.
Petitioner identifies Richardson’s contact relay 34 in Figure 1, connected
between jump starter batteries 22 and the leads serving as output port as the
power switch. Id. at 20–21. Petitioner further quotes the following text
from Richardson:
When the jump starter operation has been successfully
initiated, the contact relay 34 is closed and the jump starter
capacitors 21 and batteries 22 are connected to the starter system
or batteries of the vehicle to be started 28. The contact relay 34
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

55
is opened when a successful starter cycle has been completed, a
start fault has occurred or the operator interrupts the jump starter
cycle.” Ex. 1006, ¶ 0021.
Pet. 22. Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited evidence. Patent
Owner does not submit contrary arguments in this regard. We determine
Petitioner has shown that Richardson’s contact relay 34 is “a power switch
connected between said internal power supply and said output port.”
Claim 1 further recites: “a microcontroller configured to receive input
signals from said vehicle isolation sensor and said reverse polarity sensor,
and to provide an output signal to said power switch.” Ex. 1001, 8:23–26.
Petitioner identifies Richardson’s system microcontroller 12, shown in
Figure 1, as the claimed microcontroller, which receives inputs 14 and
provides informational outputs 16 and control outputs 18. Pet. 23 (citing
Ex. 1006 ¶ 15, Fig. 1). Petitioner further states: “Richardson’s FIG. 1
shows distinct input signals received by the microcontroller 12 from the
vehicle voltage sensor 30 and the reverse voltage sensor 24 . . . .” Id. at 24–
25. Also referring to Figure 1, Petitioner asserts that microprocessor 12
provides control signal to contact relay 34. Id. at 23. We understand
Petitioner to be referring to lines 58 and 59 in Figure 1. In that regard,
Richardson states:
The temperature of 00 AWG shunt cable 37 may also be
monitored by a temperature sensor or thermal switch 41. As long
as the temperature of the cable 37 is below a predetermined limit,
the input on line 58 is passed through sensor 41 to line 59 to
enable the contact relay 34 as controlled by system controller 12.
Ex. 1006 ¶ 18.
Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited evidence. Patent
Owner does not present contrary arguments in that regard. We are
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

56
persuaded by Petitioner that Richardson discloses “a microcontroller
configured to receive input signals from said vehicle isolation sensor and
said reverse polarity sensor, and to provide an output signal to said power
switch.”
Claim 1 further recites the following limitation “1.g” regarding the
claimed microcontroller:
such that said power switch is turned on to cause said internal
power supply to be connected to said output port in response to
signals from said sensors indicating the presence of a vehicle
battery at said output port and proper polarity connection of
positive and negative terminals of said vehicle battery with said
positive and negative polarity outputs, and is not turned on when
signals from said sensors indicate either the absence of a vehicle
battery at said output port or improper polarity connection of
positive and negative terminals of said vehicle battery with said
positive and negative polarity outputs.
Ex. 1001, 8:26–37.
The limitation refers to the action of the claimed microcontroller,
which receives input signals from the vehicle isolation sensor and the
reverse polarity sensor and provides an output signal to the power switch.
Ex. 1001, 8:23–25. According to this limitation, the power switch can be
turned on in response to affirmative indication of both (1) a signal indicating
presence of a vehicle battery, and (2) a signal indicating proper polarity
connection to that vehicle battery. If either signal is negative, however, the
power switch cannot be turned on. The parties’ arguments are consistent
with this understanding. Neither party argues anything different.
With regard to the first condition, Petitioner explains:
Richardson discloses that the starter voltage of the jump
starter apparatus can be configured by the operator “for 12, 18,
24, 30, 36, 42 or 48 volts, for example.” Ex. 1006, ¶ 0034.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

57
Richardson discloses a vehicle voltage sensor 30 that “monitors
the voltage on line 37 (voltage of the vehicle)” for detecting the
voltage of the vehicle to be started. Ex. 1006, ¶ 0016. “If one of
the push buttons 42 or 44 has been selected, the system will
compare the operator-configured starter voltage against the
voltage of the vehicle to be started 28. . . . If the difference
between the voltage selected and the voltage measured is not
within a predetermined range and tolerance 252, a “Wrong
Selector Volts” message is displayed 254 on the LCD 46 and
further operation is prohibited until the correct voltage is selected
256 at which point processing returns to the main processing loop
210.” Ex. 1006, ¶ 0034. In other words, Richardson discloses
that if a vehicle battery with a particular voltage that matches an
operator-configured starter voltage is not detected by the vehicle
voltage sensor 30, then the charging process cannot occur.
Pet. 29–30. Petitioner’s position is that a reading of zero volts or 0.032
millivolts, indicative of the absence of a vehicle battery, would lead to a
Wrong Selector Type determination and prevent closing of the power
switch.
With regard to the second condition, Petitioner refers to paragraph 27
of Richardson which reads as follows:
If the system does not detect a battery charging voltage
212, once jumper cables 60 have been manually connected to the
vehicle to be started 28, the voltage is measured by the reverse
voltage sensor 24 to determine if the cables have been properly
connected to the vehicle 214. If the voltage measured is
significantly less than the voltage of the jump starter capacitors
21 and batteries 22, then a reverse polarity connection of the
jumper cables to the vehicles is determined and an error flag is
set and the event saved in non-volatile memory 216. A “Reverse
Polarity” error message is displayed 218 on the LCD 46, and the
reverse voltage LED 48 is illuminated 216. Any further jump
starter action by the operator is ignored until the reverse polarity
condition is corrected 220, at which point processing returns to
the start of the main processing loop 210.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

58
Ex. 1006 ¶ 27 (cited at Pet. 26–27). According to this description, the power
switch (contact relay 34) cannot be closed to cause charging of the vehicle
battery unless the vehicle battery is properly connected in polarity.
Dr. Kirtley, Petitioner’s expert, testifies:
Richardson discloses in FIGS. 3–8 “flow charts of the
processing steps of the portable power source of the present
invention.” Ex. 1006, ¶ 0010. This sequence of processing steps
involves several checks performed by the microcontroller before
turning on the power switch to jump start the vehicle. As
discussed below, these checks include detecting (1) the presence
of a vehicle battery at said output port and (2) proper polarity
connection of positive and negative terminals of said vehicle
battery with said positive and negative polarity outputs.
Ex. 1002 ¶ 76 (cited at Pet. 26). Dr. Kirtley further testifies:
Thus, Richardson discloses that the power switch is turned
on to cause the internal power supply to be connected to the
output port in response to distinct signals from the sensors
indicating (1) the presence of a vehicle battery at said output port
and (2) proper polarity connection of positive and negative
terminals of said vehicle battery with said positive and negative
polarity outputs. Richardson also discloses that the power switch
is not turned on when signals from said sensors indicate either
the absence of a vehicle battery at said output port or improper
polarity connection of positive and negative terminals of said
vehicle battery with said positive and negative polarity outputs.
Id. ¶ 81.
For ease of referencing when, according to Petitioner, Richardson’s
contact relay 34 is closed, we reproduce below Richardson’s Figure 6:
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

59

Figure 6 is a partial flow chart of the processing steps of Richardson’s
device. Ex. 1006 ¶ 10. In particular, at Step 268, the Starter Contact Relay
corresponding to the power switch of claim 1 of the ’015 patent is closed.
Id. at Fig. 6.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

60
Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, discussed
below, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Richardson discloses limitation
“1.g.” In particular, we note that Richardson’s device “may be configured
for 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, or 48 volts.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 34. Thus, it can
distinguish batteries which are six volts different from each other, for
determining a Wrong Selector Type condition where the detected voltage
does not match the preset configuration of the charging device. That gives
support to Petitioner’s assertion that where the device is configured for a 12
volt battery, a detected voltage or zero or 0.032 volts will yield a Wrong
Selector Type condition which precludes further action in the charging
process.
At the outset, we note that in the Decision on Institution, we stated
that Richardson’s microprocessor does not compare the detected voltage to
zero and makes no determination that the detected voltage equals zero, and
that, rather, the determination is made on whether the difference between the
detected voltage and the battery type as set by the operator is within a
predetermined range. Decision on Institution 23. We further stated that in
Richardson there is no awareness by the microprocessor of whether a battery
is connected, and that if a battery is not connected, Richardson would
conclude that the operator has selected the wrong battery type setting and
cause an alert message to be displayed to the operator. Id. (citing Ex. 1006
¶ 34).
Those observations about Richardson remain true but do not
undermine Petitioner’s accounting for limitation “1.g.” We did not, in the
Decision on Institution, construe claim 1 or any other claim as requiring
express awareness or acknowledgment by the microprocessor that a vehicle
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

61
battery is connected. Claim 1 requires only that a signal indicating presence
or absence of a vehicle battery and a signal indicating whether a vehicle
battery is properly connected in polarity are sent to the microprocessor, and
that the microprocessor in response to both signals being affirmative would
close the power switch and in response to one or both signals being negative,
would not close the power switch. These conditions are met by Richardson,
as explained by Petitioner, noted above.
Patent Owner argues:
To the contrary, Richardson discloses that the power
switch may be closed without regard to either (1) the presence or
absence of the vehicle battery, or (2) the proper or improper
polarity connection of a vehicle battery. More specifically,
Richardson discloses that the microcontroller is configured to
close the contact relay if a shunt calibration flag is set, and that
this occurs prior to any check for the vehicle battery presence or
polarity. Richardson, Ex. 1006, at [0024]. As such, Richardson
does not disclose a microcontroller configured “such that said
power switch . . . is not turned on when signals from said sensors
indicate either the absence of a vehicle battery at said output port
or improper polarity connection . . .” as recited in claim 1. (Wood
Decl. ¶ 76.)
PO Resp. 27. Patent Owner refers to Figures 3 through 6 of Richardson in
support of the above-quoted argument. Id. Figure 3 of Richardson is
reproduced below:
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

62

Figure 3 is a partial flow chart of the processing steps of Richardson’s
device. Ex. 1006 ¶ 10. It includes main processing loop 210. The first step
is to check flags at 404, and leads to Point A, continued in Figure 4,
reproduced below:
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

63

Figure 4 is a partial flow chart of the processing steps of Richardson’s
device. Ex. 1006 ¶ 10. It shows that only a single question is asked at 406,
i.e., whether the shunt calibration flag is set, before closing the starter
contact relay at 408, if the answer is affirmative, thus turning on the power
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

64
switch. Thereafter, further steps are taken leading to Point B which leads
back to Figure 3.
Patent Owner asserts:
After closing the contact relay at step 408, the Richardson
system continues through the calibration process steps in FIG. 4,
and returns to its main process loop in FIG. 3. The system then
checks whether the batteries of the Richardson system are being
charged at step 212 (Battery Charging Voltage?). Only after
these steps are complete does Richardson finally perform a
polarity check at step 214 (Reversed Jumper Cable Voltage?).
PO Resp. 28. In summary, Patent Owner states: “The Richardson
microcontroller does not consider either a signal from the vehicle battery
isolation sensor or a signal from a reverse polarity sensor prior to closing the
contact relay at step 408.” Id.
Patent Owner’s contentions are misplaced. Although it is true that in
one circumstance, i.e., when the shunt calibration flag is set, Richardson’s
microprocessor will close contact relay 34 without making any check on the
output of vehicle voltage sensor 30 and reverse voltage sensor 24,
Richardson does not describe that the shunt calibration flag is always set.
Thus, it is only in one particular mode of operation, i.e., when the shunt
calibration flag is set, that the operation of Richardson’s device does not
meet the claim requirement. Patent Owner does not dispute that in a mode
of operation represented by the shunt calibration flag not set, contact relay
34 is not closed unless a signal is received by the microprocessor from a
sensor indicating presence of a vehicle battery and a signal is received by the
microprocessor from a sensor indicating the vehicle battery is not reverse
connected. Richardson does not have to meet the claim in all of
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

65
Richardson’s modes of operation. Meeting the claim in one mode of
operation is sufficient for anticipation.
Regarding shunt calibration, Richardson describes:
The temperature of the shunt cable is measured 410 and the
voltage drop across the shunt cable is read 412. The temperature
of the shunt cable is measured a second time and averaged with
the previous reading 414. The shunt resistance is then calculated
and saved 416 and the shunt calibration flag is cleared.
Ex. 1006 ¶ 24. Richardson states: “The shunt cable 36 is a precisely
measured and calibrated 00 AWG wire, the temperature of which is
monitored 40 and used to calculate the resistance across the length of the
cable.” Id. ¶ 43. Shunt cable 36 is shown in Figure 1 connecting jump
starter batteries 22 to contact relay 34. Id. at Fig. 1. Notably, Richardson
describes that after each calibration, the shunt calibration flag is cleared, and
does not describe that the shunt calibration flag is set for each and every use
of the charging apparatus.
Petitioner asserts that the calibration procedure is only optional.
Reply 5. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that the calibration
procedure is only performed sometimes, when the shunt calibration flag is
set, but not in times when the shunt calibration flag is not set. We agree. In
that regard, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Wood, agrees that Richardson
contemplates a flow of control where the shunt calibration flag is not set:
Q. So Richardson contemplates a flow of control
where the shunt calibration flag was not set, correct?
A. That is reasonable. He shows an option -- an
option of a “no” result from Step 406.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

66
Ex. 1047, 110:14–18. Dr. Wood also agrees that when the shunt calibration
flag is not set and the procedure advances to Step 420, the contact relay in
Richardson is still open:
Q. Now, if the shunt calibration flag is not set and we
go to Step 420, the starter contact relay in Richardson is still
open, correct?
A. That is my understanding.
Id. at 77:10–13. Dr. Wood further agrees that when the shunt calibration
flag is not set and the procedure advances to Step 214, where reverse
polarity connection is tested, the starter contact relay is still open:
Q. Okay. Then if we continue to Step 214 in this
example, where the shunt calibration flag was not set, when
we’re testing for the condition reverse jumper cable voltage, the
starter contact relay is still open, right?
A. That appears to be the case.
Id. at 78:23–79:3. Dr. Wood still further agrees that when the shunt
calibration flag is not set, at Step 266 contact relay 34 is still open and Step
268 closes the contact relay:
Q. Okay. But in -- so let me ask the question again.
In the situation where the shunt calibration flag was not
set in Step 266, the starter contact relay is still open, and then it
is closed when control goes from -- passes from 266 and goes
to 268, correct?
A. Well, that’s -- I agree with that with the caveat of
my previous answer, in which I’ve stated the conditions under
which Step 268 takes place. I don’t need to repeat my previous
answer.
Id. at 83:22–84:6.
For the foregoing reasons, the fact that Richardson discloses a
separate mode of operation when the shunt calibration flag is set,
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

67
during which contact relay 34 is immediately closed without checking
if a vehicle battery is connected or if a vehicle battery is connected in
reverse polarity, does not defeat or undermine Petitioner’s reliance on
a mode of operation that corresponds to non-setting of the shunt
calibration flag.
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has proved by a preponderance
of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by Richardson.
3. Claims 7–9, 15, 17–21
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “further
comprising a temperature sensor configured to detect temperature of said
internal power supply and to provide a temperature signal to said
microcontroller.” Ex. 1001, 8:53–56. Petitioner identifies Richardson’s
battery temperature sensor 38 as such a sensor. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1006
¶ 17, Fig. 1). Patent Owner does not present any argument additional to that
it presents with respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed and
rejected above in the context of claim 1. We are persuaded that Richardson
discloses this additional limitation of claim 7.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 7
is anticipated by Richardson.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “further
comprising a voltage measurement circuit configured to measure output
voltage of said internal power supply and to provide a voltage measurement
signal to said microcontroller.” Ex. 1001, 8:57–60. Petitioner identifies
Richardson’s battery voltage sensor 20 as such a voltage measurement
circuit. Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 16, Fig. 1). Patent Owner does not
present any argument additional to that it presents with respect to claim 1,
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

68
which we already have discussed and rejected above in the context of
claim 1. We are persuaded that Richardson discloses this additional
limitation of claim 8.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8
is anticipated by Richardson.
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “further
comprising a voltage regulator configured to convert output voltage of said
internal power supply to a voltage level appropriate to provide operating
power to internal components of the apparatus.” Ex. 1001, 8:61–64.
Petitioner identifies component “LM7805” in Richardson’s Figure 2A as
such a voltage regulator providing power to the internal components of the
charging apparatus. Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 2A; Ex. 1002 ¶ 91).
Patent Owner does not present any argument additional to that it presents
with respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed and rejected above
in the context of claim 1. We are persuaded that Richardson discloses this
additional limitation of claim 9.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 9
is anticipated by Richardson.
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “further
comprising a plurality of visual indicators configured to display remaining
capacity status of said internal power supply.” Ex. 1001, 9:11–13.
Petitioner identifies Richardson’s LED 54 and LCD 46 as visual indicators
which display remaining capacity status of the internal power supply. Pet.
36. In that regard, Richardson states:
If the voltage level of the system batteries 22 measured by the
voltage sensor 30 is equal to a state of charge of eighty percent
or more below a fully charged voltage level 222, an error flag is
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

69
set and the event recorded in memory 224. The charge battery
LED 54 is illuminated and the LCD 46 displays a “Charge
Battery” message 225.
Ex. 1006 ¶ 28 (cited at Pet. 36). Petitioner’s assertion is supported by the
cited evidence.
Patent Owner does not present any argument additional to that it
presents with respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed and
rejected above in the context of claim 1. We are persuaded that Richardson
discloses this additional limitation of claim 15.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim
15 is anticipated by Richardson.
Claim 17 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “further
comprising a visual indicator configured to warn a user when a vehicle
battery is connected with reverse polarity.” Ex. 1001, 9:17–19. Petitioner
identifies in Richardson a “Reverse Polarity” error message displayed on
LCD 46 and the illumination of reverse voltage LED 48 as such a visual
indicator. Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 27). Petitioner’s assertion is supported
by the cited evidence.
Patent Owner does not present any argument additional to that it
presents with respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed and
rejected above in the context of claim 1. We are persuaded that Richardson
discloses this additional limitation of claim 17.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim
17 is anticipated by Richardson.
Claim 18 depends from claim 1, and further recites: “further
comprising separate visual indicators configured to display the power on
status of the apparatus, and the jump start boost power status of power
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

70
supplied to said output port.” Ex. 1001, 9:20–23. Petitioner identifies
Richardson’s LCD 46 as a visual indicator showing the power on status of
the jump starter, and Richardson’s LED 54 as a separate visual indicator
displaying the jump start boost power status of power supplied to the output
port. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 20, 22). The assertions are supported
by the cited evidence.
Patent Owner does not present any argument additional to that it
presents with respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed and
rejected above in the context of claim 1. We are persuaded that Richardson
discloses this additional limitation of claim 18.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim
18 is anticipated by Richardson.
Claim 19 depends from claim 1, and further recites: “further
comprising a manual override switch configured to activate a manual
override mode to enable a user to connect jump start power to said output
port when said vehicle battery isolation sensor is unable to detect presence
of a vehicle battery.” Ex. 1001, 10:1–5. Petitioner explains:
Richardson discloses a manual override mode that can be
used if the presence of the vehicle battery cannot be detected.
“The unit 10 also includes automatic 42 and manual 44
pushbutton inputs to accept user input to select either automatic
or manual operation.” Ex. 1006, ¶ 0017. “If in manual mode,
the jump starter 10 may be used when the battery voltage of the
vehicle is below 10 volts, or if the vehicle’s battery is not
connected.” Ex. 1006, ¶ 0049.
Pet. 39. The assertions are supported by the cited evidence. It also is true
that if vehicle battery is not connected, no sensor is able to detect the
presence of a vehicle battery.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

71
Patent Owner does not present any argument additional to that it
presents with respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed and
rejected above in the context of claim 1. We are persuaded that Richardson
discloses the additional limitation of claim 19.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
claim 19 is anticipated by Richardson.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19, and further recites: “wherein said
microcontroller is configured to detect actuation of said manual override
switch for at least a predetermined period of time before activation of said
manual override mode.” Ex. 1001, 10:6–9. Petitioner explains:
[I]f manual mode is selected 258, “Manual” is displayed 332 on
the LCD 46, the system will prompt the operator to press the
manual button again. If the manual button 44 is pressed a second
time 334, then the system checks the number of start attempts
266. If the maximum number of start attempts has been
exceeded, an over start attempt error count is incremented 336, a
“Cool Down Unit” message is displayed 338 on the LCD 46, and
the system waits for five minutes for the system to cool 340.
Once the cool down time has expired, processing returns to the
main processing loop 210. If the total start attempts have not
exceeded the limit 266, the processing continues at block 268 as
described above.” Ex. 1006, ¶ 0047.
Pet. 39. The assertion is supported by the cited evidence.
Patent Owner does not present any argument additional to that it
presents with respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed and
rejected above in the context of claim 1. We are persuaded that Richardson
discloses the additional limitation of claim 20.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim
20 is anticipated by Richardson.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

72
Claim 21 depends from claim 1, and further recites: “further
comprising a jumper cable device including a plug configured to plug into
said output port, a pair of cables integrated with the plug at one respective
end thereof and being configured to be connected to terminals of a battery at
another respective end thereof.” Ex. 1001, 10:10–14.
Petitioner identifies Richardson’s jumper cables 60 shown in Figure
2C of Richardson, including red and black clamps connected to vehicle 28,
as such a jumper cable device. Pet. 40. Petitioner further asserts that Figure
2C “shows electrical symbols depicting a plug/socket connection of the
jumper cables 60 to the output port.” Id. The assertions are supported by
Figure 2C of Richardson, reproduced below:

Figure 2C is a partial schematic of Richardson’s portable power source,
control circuit, and sensors. Ex. 1006 ¶ 9.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

73
Patent Owner does not present any argument additional to that it
presents with respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed and
rejected above in the context of claim 1. We are persuaded that Richardson
discloses this additional limitation of claim 21.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim
21 is anticipated by Richardson.
H. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 2, 3,
12–14, and 23 over Richardson and Lei8
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein said
internal power supply comprises a lithium ion battery.” Ex. 1001, 8:38–39.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites: “wherein said internal
power supply comprises a battery pack of multiple lithium ion batteries.” Id.
at 8:40–42.
Lei discloses an emergency power source that outputs a high current
for starting a vehicle. Ex. 1008, 2:7–9. The emergency power source
includes a battery pack. Id. at 2:13–14. Output terminals of the battery pack
are connected to a high current outputting circuit for outputting a high
current used for starting a vehicle. Id. at 2:17–20. An external smart battery
detection system is connected between the battery pack and the high current
outputting circuit. Id. at 2:23–25. Lei further states: “emergency power
source uses lithium-ion batteries as its battery pack.” Id. at 6:50–51. Lei
additionally states: “In certain embodiments, the battery pack consists of
lithium-ion batteries connected in series or parallel.” Id. at 2:22–3.

8 For these claims, Patent Owner has not submitted objective evidence for
consideration. See PO Resp. 41–46.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

74
Petitioner asserts:
A POSITA would have been particularly motivated to use
lithium-ion batteries because Lei discloses several specific
benefits of using lithium-ion batteries in jump starter devices:
“The emergency power source uses lithium-ion batteries as its
battery pack, which has the characteristics of light weight, small
size, durability, high instantaneous discharge current and
rechargeability, which is capable of supplying a high current for
starting a vehicle.” Ex. 1008, 5:15–21. This teaching would
have provided motivation to a POSITA to use lithium-ion
batteries in Richardson. Ex. 1002, ¶ 120.
Pet. 42. The assertions are supported by the cited evidence, and the reasoning
has rational underpinning.
Patent Owner does not present any argument additional to that it
presents with respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed and
rejected above in the context of claim 1. We are persuaded that the proposed
combination of Richardson and Lei is proper and teaches the additional
limitations of claims 2 and 3.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 2 and 3 are unpatentable over Richardson and Lei.
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “further
comprising a flash-light circuit configured to provide a source of light to a
user.” Ex. 1001, 9:4–5. Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and further
recites: “wherein said source of light is at least one LED.” Id. at 9:6–7.
Petitioner cites to the following disclosure of Lei: “an output terminal of the
LED driving circuit 12 is connected to a LED lighting lamp 13.” Ex. 1008,
6:36–38 (cited at Pet. 43). Petitioner further cites to this description in Lei:
“LED lighting lamp may provide outdoor lighting.” Id. at 5:32–33 (cited at
Pet. 43). Petitioner asserts: “A POSITA would have been motivated to
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

75
incorporate a flashlight circuit having an LED light source in Richardson’s
jump starter to provide outdoor lighting for the user, as suggested by Lei.”
Pet. 43. The assertions are supported by the cited evidence and the
reasoning has rational underpinning.
Patent Owner does not present any argument additional to that it
presents with respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed and
rejected above in the context of claim 1. We are persuaded that the proposed
combination of Richardson and Lei is proper and teaches the additional
limitations of claims 12 and 13.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 12 and 13 are unpatentable over Richardson and Lei.
Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and further recites: “wherein said
microcontroller is configured to control said at least one LED to provide a
visual alarm indicating an emergency situation.” Ex. 1001, 9:8–10.
Petitioner cites to the following disclosure of Lei:
An output terminal of the DC-DC 12V output circuit 10 is
connected to an alerting system, 15 for transmitting an alerting
signal. . . . A start button of the alerting system 15 can be pressed
by the user when he or she is lost or some condition occurs. The
alerting system 15 may notice people around for help by lighting
the indicator light or transmitting sounds with the alerting system
15.
Ex. 1008, 7:3–13 (cited at Pet. 43). Petitioner asserts that as shown in Lei’s
Figure 1, alerting system 15 is operably coupled controller circuit 14. Pet.
43. Petitioner further asserts: “A POSITA would have been motivated to
incorporate a visual alarm feature indicating an emergency situation
controlled by the microcontroller in Richardson’s jump starter as a safety
feature for the user, as suggested by Lei. Ex. 1002, ¶ 128.” Id. at 44.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

76
Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited evidence and
Petitioner’s reasoning has rational underpinning. Patent Owner does not
present any argument additional to that it presents with respect to claim 1,
which we already have discussed and rejected above in the context of
claim 1. We are persuaded that the proposed combination of Richardson and
Lei is proper and teaches the additional limitations of claim 14.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
claim 14 is unpatentable over Richardson and Lei.
Claim 23 depends from claim 21 and further recites: “wherein said
output port and said plug are dimensioned so that the plug will fit into the
output port only in one specific orientation.” Ex. 1001, 10:20–22. Petitioner
cites to the following disclosure of Lei:
The external smart battery detection system 6 includes a
red power source clip and a black power source clip for
connecting with an external battery . . . the red and black power
source clips are connected to the battery pack through an anti-
reverse connector connected to the battery pack through an anti-
reverse connector connected to the positive and negative e
electrodes of the battery pack 4 or conducting wires welded to
the positive and negative electrodes of the battery pack 4.
Ex. 1008, 7:65–8:14. Petitioner asserts that “[t]he insertable anti-reverse
connector disclosed by Lei comprises a plug that can fit into the output port
only in the correct orientation, not a reversed connection.” Pet. 45.
Petitioner further explains: “A POSITA would have been motivated to
incorporate the insertable anti-reverse connector disclosed by Lei in
Richardson’s jump starter to avoid a reverse connection, as suggested by
Lei, for safe operation and convenience. Ex. 1002, ¶ 132.” Id. at 45–46.
Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited evidence and
Petitioner’s reasoning has rational underpinning. Patent Owner does not
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

77
present any argument additional to that it presents with respect to claim 1,
which we already have discussed and rejected above in the context of
claim 1. We are persuaded that the proposed combination of Richardson and
Lei is proper and teaches the additional limitations of claim 23.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim
23 is unpatentable over Richardson and Lei.
I. Alleged Obviousness of Claims
4 and 5 over Richardson and Krieger9
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein said
power switch comprises a plurality of FETs in parallel.” Ex. 1001, 8:43–44.
Petitioner identifies Krieger’s switch 12 as shown in Krieger’s Figure 1 as
such a power switch. Pet. 47. Petitioner cites the following description of
Krieger: “The switch 12 is preferably a solid state device, such as a
transistor, diode, field effect transistor (FET), etc. FIG. 1 represents the
switch 12 as a number [of] FETs 12a-12d notes that Figure 1 of Krieger
illustrates switch 12 as a number of FETs 12a-12d connected in parallel with
each other.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 30 (cited at Pet. 47). Petitioner further explains:
Krieger says by using a solid state switch comprising
FETs, “[t]here is no need for any mechanical or electro-
mechanical devices, as the FETs are the current handling
devices.” Ex. 1009, ¶ 0033. Substituting a relay switch in
Richardson’s jump starter with a solid state switch comprising a
plurality of FETs would have been obvious to a POSITA to avoid
or reduce electro-mechanical components, as suggested by
Krieger. Ex. 1002, ¶ 144.
Pet. 48.

9 For these claims, Patent Owner has not submitted objective evidence for
consideration. See PO Resp. 41–46.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

78
Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited evidence and
Petitioner’s reasoning has rational underpinning. Patent Owner does not
present any argument additional to that it presents with respect to claim 1,
which we already have discussed and rejected above in the context of
claim 1. We are persuaded that the proposed combination of Richardson and
Krieger is proper and teaches the additional limitation of claim 4.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 4
is unpatentable over Richardson and Krieger.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein said
vehicle isolation sensor and reverse polarity sensor comprise optically
coupled isolator phototransistors.” Id. at 8:45–47. Petitioner identifies in
Krieger opto-isolator 16 including phototransistor 22, which according to
Petitioner performs the functions of both a vehicle isolation sensor and a
reverse polarity sensor. Pet. 49–50 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 33). Petitioner
asserts: “It would therefore be obvious to a POSITA to use one opto-isolator
to sense the presence of a vehicle battery and a correct polarity connection,
or two opto-isolators if a POSITA wanted to use one for battery detection
and another for correct polarity connection, e.g., for redundancy.” Pet. 50–
51. Petitioner further explains:
A POSITA would be particularly motivated to use opto-
couplers if the type disclose[d] by Krieger for sensing the
presence of a vehicle battery and a correct polarity connection
because the opto-coupler used in Krieger is an inherently digital
device that can be preferable over using analog inputs to the
system microcontroller, which may be subject to tests to
determine if the vehicle battery is present or reversed. A
POSITA would be motivated to simplify the system by using an
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

79
optical coupler for one or both sensing functions, e.g., to provide
a compact, packaged jump starter. Ex. 1002, ¶ 150.
Pet. 51.
Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited evidence, and
Petitioner’s reasoning has rational underpinning. Patent Owner does not
present any argument additional to that it presents with respect to claim 1,
which we already have discussed and rejected above in the context of claim
1. We are persuaded that the proposed combination of Richardson and
Krieger is proper and teaches the additional limitation of claim 5.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 5
is unpatentable over Richardson and Krieger.
J. Alleged Obviousness of Claim
6 over Richardson and Wanzong10
Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and further recites: “further
comprising a plurality of power diodes coupled between said output port and
said internal power supply to prevent back-charging of said internal power
supply from an electrical system connected to said output port.” Ex. 1001,
8:48–52.
Wanzong discloses a voltage regulated battery maintainer and charger
apparatus. Ex. 1010, Abstr. Wanzong describes:
The battery maintainer apparatus also includes a variety of safety
features not ordinarily associated with a battery charger
including but not limited to a circuit which shuts out charging
current when reverse polarity is detected, a feature whereby
current is not supplied to the output terminals until said terminals
have come in contact with a storage battery of sufficient initial

10 For this claim, Patent Owner has not submitted objective evidence for
consideration. See PO Resp. 41–46.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

80
voltage, thus preventing the output terminals from sparking
should they accidentally contact each other prior to hook-up with
the storage battery.
Id.
Petitioner explains:
Wanzong discloses an “isolation diode 160”, which acts as
the power diodes to prevent back-charging of said internal power
supply from an electrical system connected to said output port.
Shown in FIG. 1 below, the isolation sensor 160 is between the
output port (output terminals 170 and 180) of the charger
apparatus and the internal power supply (transformer 20/full
wave bridge rectifier 30/ main capacitor). Ex. 1010, 4:10–20;
4:45–53. While the storage battery 150 is being charged,
“[c]harging current for the battery will pass through the isolation
transistor 110 and out through the final isolation diode 160 to the
storage battery 150 under charge.” Ex. 1010, 12:15–18. The
isolation sensor 160 acts as the power diodes to prevent back-
charging of said internal power supply from the storage battery
150.
Pet. 5–53. For additional support, Petitioner cites to the following description
in Wanzong:
When a storage battery 150 containing more than 6 cells is
connected to the terminals 170 and 180, the voltage regulator
integrated circuit 70 will modulate off the main power transistor
90, current will cease to flow from the voltage regulator
integrated circuit to the storage battery 150 and the final isolating
diode 160 will be reverse biased and block current flow from the
storage battery 150 to the present invention.
Ex. 1010, 13:1–10 (cited at Pet. 53). Petitioner further explains: “While
Wanzong shows a single isolating diode 160 in the schematic diagram of
FIG. 1[, i]t would be understood by a POSITA that a plurality of isolating
diodes could be arranged in parallel to handle higher current flow. Ex. 1002,
¶ 160.” Pet. 53.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

81
Petitioner asserts that incorporating Wanzong’s isolating diode 160 in
Richardson “would have been obvious to [] a POSITA to prevent back-
charging of the charging circuit during or after the charging process.” Id.
at 54. Petitioner further asserts that a “POSITA would have been motivated
to use an isolating diode 160 to prevent damage to the charging circuit. Ex.
1002, ¶ 161.” Id.
Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited evidence, and
Petitioner’s reasoning has rational underpinning. Patent Owner does not
present any argument additional to that it presents with respect to claim 1,
which we already have discussed and rejected above in the context of
claim 1. We are persuaded that the proposed combination of Richardson and
Wanzong is proper and teaches the additional limitation of claim 6.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 6
is unpatentable over Richardson and Wanzong.
K. Alleged Obviousness of Claim
16 over Richardson and Baxter11
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and further recites: “wherein said
plurality of visual indicators comprises a plurality of LEDs providing output
light of different colors.” Ex. 1001, 9:14–16. Baxter’s disclosure relates to
safety features provided for batteries and jumper cables. Ex. 1011, 1:4–6.
Baxter describes:
Implementation of the invention provides a connecting
cable between two low-voltage systems (such as batteries) that
includes a safety circuit. The safety circuit leaves the two low-
voltage systems disconnected until it determines that it is safe to

11 For this claim, Patent Owner has not submitted objective evidence for
consideration. See PO Resp. 41–46.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

82
make a connection. If the safety circuit detects an unsafe
condition, it responds to the unsafe condition in one or more of
several fashions. In some instances, the safety circuit can
internally reverse connection polarity to correct for incorrect
connections between low-voltage systems of reverse-polarity
type. In some instances, the safety circuit provides an audible
and/or visible alarm identifying a potential problem. In some
instances, the safety circuit refuses to make a connection between
the two low-voltage systems while an unsafe condition exists.
Ex. 1011, 1:24–32.
Petitioner asserts that using LEDs to provide output light of different
colors to indicate different conditions is plainly obvious by itself. Pet. 55.
Nevertheless, Petitioner also relies on Baxter. Id. at 55–56. Petitioner cites
to the following description in Baxter: “microcontroller 26 can activate a
green LED as a signal of proper connection . . . . Alternatively, a red LED
might be activated if an improper connection is detected.” Ex. 1001, 10:24–
31 (cited at Pet. 55–56). Petitioner further asserts that in Baxter, different
color LEDs are also used to indicate other conditions, e.g., if the cable
clamps accidentally are touching. Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1011, 12:18–29).
Baxter states: “if the cable clamps accidentally are touching or if the
positive clamp is also touching a ground source, the red LED could flash
(possibly in a different timing pattern or a different LED), the connection
would not be completed, and the user could adjust or reconnect the cables
correctly and try again.” Ex. 1011, 12:18–26.
Petitioner asserts: “It would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate
LEDs providing output light of different colors in the Richardson device to
indicate various conditions, including the capacity status of the internal
power supply, since using lights of different colors enables users to readily
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

83
view particular conditions clearly and easily.” Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1002
¶ 170).
Regarding the disclosure of Baxter and the proposed combination of
Richardson and Baxter, Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited
evidence and Petitioner’s reasoning has rational underpinning. Patent
Owner does not present any argument additional to that it presents with
respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed and rejected above in
the context of claim 1. We are persuaded that the proposed combination of
Richardson and Baxter is proper and teaches the additional limitation of
claim 16.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim
16 is unpatentable over Richardson and Baxter.
L. Alleged Obviousness of Claim 22 over Richardson and Richardet12
Claim 22 depends from claim 21 and further recites: “wherein said
jumper cable device further comprises a pair of ring terminals configured to
respectively connect said pair of cables at said another end thereof with one
of a battery terminal and a battery terminal clamp.” Ex. 1001, 10:15–19.
Figure 2A of Richardet is reproduced below:

12 For this claim, Patent Owner has not submitted objective evidence for
consideration. See PO Resp. 41–46.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

84

Figure 2A is a perspective view of a battery connector assembly portion 20
of a quick-release battery cable system 10. Ex. 1014, 3:5–7. Richardet
describes:
The battery connector assembly 20 comprises a first fastener 21,
a pair of battery ring terminals 23, a negative battery cable 24, a
positive battery cable 25, and an accessory connector 28. The
battery ring terminals 23 provide an attachment means thereto a
positive battery terminal 120 and a negative battery terminal 130
thereon a primary battery 100 (see FIG. 3). The battery ring
terminals are attached to appropriately gauged battery cables 24,
25 comprising heavy gauged battery cables 24, 25 comprising
heavily gauged conductors being approximately five (5) feet
long.
Id. at 4:57–63. Petitioner asserts:
[Figure 2A] discloses a “battery connector assembly 20
comprises a first fastener 21, a pair of battery ring terminals 23,
a negative battery cable 24, a positive battery cable 25, and an
accessory connector 28. The battery ring terminals 23 provide
an attachment means thereto a positive battery terminal 120 and
a negative battery terminal 130 thereon a primary battery 100
(see FIG. 3).” Ex. 1014, 4:57–63. Thus, Richardet discloses a
pair of ring terminals 23 to connect a pair of cables 24, 25 with
battery terminals 120 and 130.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

85
Pet. 65–66. Petitioner further asserts:
Richardet discloses that its cable systems “provide a
battery terminal connection which provides secure and stable
connection to a motor vehicle battery or the like adaptable to a
variety of common scenarios and which is simple and quick for
an average user.” Ex. 1014, 1:59–65. Combining Richardet’s
cable system with ring terminals in Richardson would have been
obvious to a POSITA as another advantageous way of
connecting cables to a battery. A POSITA would have been
particularly motivated to use Richardet’s cabling system to
provide a secure and stable connection to a vehicle battery in a
simple and quick way for an average user, as suggested by
Richardet. Ex. 1002, ¶ 204.
Id. at 67.
Regarding the disclosure of Richardet and the proposed combination
of Richardson and Richardet, Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the
cited evidence and Petitioner’s reasoning has rational underpinning. Patent
Owner does not present any argument additional to that it presents with
respect to claim 1, which we already have discussed and rejected above in
the context of claim 1. We are persuaded that the proposed combination of
Richardson and Richardet is proper and teaches the additional limitation of
claim 22.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim
22 is unpatentable over Richardson and Richardet.
M. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 10–13
over Richardson and either Epower-20 or Epower-21
1. Epower-20 and Epower-21
Epower-20 is purported by Petitioner to be a product brochure of
Petitioner’s Multifunction Jump Starter product “EPower-20,” and Epower-
21 is purported by Petitioner to be a product brochure of Petitioner’s
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

86
Multifunction Jump Starter product “EPower-21.” Pet. 56. Regarding the
status of these brochures as printed publications, Petitioner asserts:
Both brochures were distributed to attendees of the 115th China
Import and Export Fair 2014 in Guangzhou, China (“2014
Canton Fair”), one of the largest trade shows in the world, on
April 15 - May 5, 2014. Ex. 2018 at 2. The Epower-20 and E-
power 21 jump starters and their brochures were on display and
publically accessible to all attendees during the entire period of
the 2014 Canton Fair at Carku’s booth at the fair. Id. The booth
was easily accessible to all attendees. Id. Carku’s staff handed
out the brochures and encouraged the visitors to take the
brochures. Id. The brochures are therefore printed publications
available to the public before the July 3, 2014 effective filing date
of the ’015 patent, and this prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
Pet. 56–57. Patent Owner challenges the authenticity of Epower-20 and
Epower-21 and has moved to exclude them from evidence. Paper 64. We
address those issues in Section II.N. below discussing Patent Owner’s
Motion to Exclude. Here, we note simply that Patent Owner’s Motion to
Exclude Epower-20 and Epower-21 from evidence is denied.
2. Claim 1013
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “further
comprising a USB output port configured to provide charging power from
said internal power supply to a USB-chargeable device.” Ex. 1001, 8:65–67.
Petitioner asserts:
112. The Epower-20 brochure shows two USB output
ports at the front of the device below:

13 For this claim, Patent Owner has not submitted objective evidence for
consideration. See PO Resp. 41–46.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

87

113. The “Specification” of the Epower-20 brochure
states the “Output” includes “5V/2A, 5V/1A ---mobile phone,
tablet PC, other digital devices.” A POSITA would understand
that the 5V/2A and 5V/1A outputs described and shown are USB
outputs for charging mobile phones and other devices. Ex. 1002,
¶ 78.
114. Additionally, the Epower-20 brochure discloses a
“3-in-1 Mobile Phone Cable” accessory below with Micro USB,
ipPhone4, iPhone5” outputs. The right end of the cable is a USB
plug, which a POSITA would understand is plugged into a USB
port shown above. Ex. 1012, ¶ 184. The other end of the cable
includes the “Micro USB, iPhone4, iPhone5” outputs described
in the brochure.

IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

88

115. The Epower-21 brochure similarly discloses USB
output ports.
Pet. 59–60. Petitioner explains: “The USB output ports allow users to
charge USB-chargeable devices like cell phones. It would have been
obvious to a POSITA to incorporate USB output ports in Richardson as a
convenience feature allowing users to also charge electronic devices.” Pet.
60.
Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited evidence and
Petitioner’s reasoning has rational underpinning. Patent Owner does not
present any argument additional to that it presents with respect to claim 1,
which we already have discussed and rejected above in the context of claim
1, except to seek to exclude Epower-20 and Epower-21 from evidence. In
Section II.N. below, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. We are
persuaded that the proposed combination of Richardson and Epower-20 and
Richardson and Epower-21 are proper and that both combinations teach the
additional limitation of claim 10.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

89
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim
10 is unpatentable over Richardson and Epower-20, and also over
Richardson and Epower-21.
3. Claims 12 and 1314
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “further
comprising a flashlight circuit configured to provide a source of light to a
user.” Ex. 1001, 9:4–5. Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and further
recites: “wherein said source of light is at least one LED.” Ex. 1001, 9:6–7.
Petitioner asserts:
124. The Epower-20 and Epower-21 brochures show a
flashlight at the font of the devices in the pictures below.

14 For these claims, Patent Owner has not submitted objective evidence for
consideration. See PO Resp. 41–46.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

90

125. The Epower-20 brochure also shows the flashlight
in operation.

IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

91
126. It would be obvious for a POSITA to use an LED
lamp in the flashlight as LED lamps have high energy efficiency.
Ex. 1002, ¶ 195.
127. A POSITA would have been motivated to
incorporate a flashlight circuit having an LED light source in
Richardson to provide lighting for the user, as suggested by the
brochures.
Pet. 63–64.
Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited evidence and
Petitioner’s reasoning has rational underpinning. Patent Owner does not
present any argument additional to that it presents with respect to claim 1,
which we already have discussed and rejected above in the context of claim
1, except to seek to exclude Epower-20 and Epower-21 from evidence. In
Section II.N. below, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. We are
persuaded that the proposed combination of Richardson and Epower-20 and
Richardson and Epower-21 are proper and that both combinations teach the
additional limitation of claim 12 and the additional limitation of claim 13.
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 12 and 13 are unpatentable over Richardson and Epower-20, and also
over Richardson and Epower-21.
4. Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “further
comprising a USB charging port configured to provide charging power from
an external power source to said internal power supply.” Ex. 1001, 9:1–3.
Petitioner has submitted objective evidence of nonobviousness for this
claim. PO Resp. 41–46. However, we determine that Petitioner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness based on the applied
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

92
references. Accordingly, consideration and discussion of the objective
evidence of nonobviousness is unnecessary.
Petitioner asserts that both Epower-20 and Epower-21 disclose jump
starters with USB outputs to charge other devices. Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1012,
1; Ex. 1013, 1). The assertion is supported by the cited evidence and not
disputed by Patent Owner. Petitioner acknowledges that neither Epower-20
not Epower-21 discloses a USB charging port providing charging power
from an external power source to an internal power supply. Id. Petitioner
notes, however, that both Epower-20 and Epower-21 disclose a non-USB,
“14V 1A” input port for charging the jump starter with a “Home Charger.”
Id.
Petitioner explains:
It would be readily apparent from the references that a
USB port, which is simply a different physical plug and socket
combination from the round plug and socket used in the Epower-
20 and 21 products, could also be incorporated into portable
jump starters in place of or in addition to the 14V 1 A input port
to charge the internal batteries of jump starter devices. A
POSITA would be motivated to provide such a USB charging
port to provide the added convenience to users of using another
commonly used power input for charging the jump starter device.
Ex. 1002, ¶ 190.
Id. at 62 (emphasis added).
For several reasons, we determine that Petitioner’s articulation of a
motivation for one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a USB input
charging port in Richardson based on Epower-20’s or Epower-21’s
disclosure is conclusory and not adequately supported by the evidence
submitted with the Petition. Dr. Kirtley’s testimony, cited in the above-
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

93
quoted argument, reads essentially the same as the quoted text and adds
nothing more.15
In his Declaration, Dr. Kirtley does not identify any jump starter
device having a USB input charging port. Ex. 1002 ¶ 189. Dr. Kirtley also
does not explain whether all USB ports, if found on a device, are capable of
(without redesign or adaptation) providing output charging power to a USB
input charging port, and if not all, then which ones on what devices. The
record suggests that not all USB ports serve both to output and receive
power, because Petitioner does not identify the USB output charging port of
Epower-20 or Epower-21 as also a USB input charging port. Further, in
paragraph 189 of his Declaration (Ex. 1002), Dr. Kirtley provides no
explanation for the embedded assertion that a USB port is commonly used as
a power input to devices, e.g., how common and to what types of devices.
The matter is much more complicated than what Petitioner’s argument
makes it out to be. There is insufficient accounting by Petitioner of the
expectation at the time of one with ordinary skill in the art about the ease or
difficulty in locating a usable source to provide input charge to a USB port
on a jump starter. In the absence of sufficient explanation and supporting
evidence, which is the case here, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s
conclusory assertion that “[a] POSITA would be motivated to provide such a
USB charging port to provide the added convenience to users of using
another commonly used power input for charging the jump starter device.”
Pet. 62. The Federal Circuit has stated that “[t]his assessment of basic
knowledge and common sense was not based on any evidence in the record

15 Petitioner mis-cites the location of Dr. Kirtley’s testimony on this subject.
It is located in paragraph 189, not paragraph 190, of Exhibit 1002.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

94
and, therefore, lacks substantial evidentiary support.” In re Zurko, 258 F.3d
1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner provides its own reasons
why it would not have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to
include in a jump starter a USB input charging port. PO Resp. 36–46. But
the burden is on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. 35 U.S.C.
§ 316(e) (2018); see also Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. We need
not discuss Patent Owner’s showings with regard to claim 11, because, as
discussed above, based on the arguments and evidence submitted by
Petitioner in its Petition, Petitioner has not established obviousness of
claim 11 over the applied references. Likewise, we need not consider and
discuss the rebuttal arguments and evidence submitted by Petitioner in its
Reply. The deficiencies discussed above with respect to the Petition cannot
be cured by additional arguments, explanations, and evidence submitted in
the Reply.
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 11 is unpatentable over Richardson
and Epower-20, or Richardson and Epower-21.
N. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude. Paper 64. For reasons
discussed below, the Motion is denied.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

95
1. Lei Declaration (Exhibit 1022) and Exhibits attached Thereto16
Patent Owner seeks to exclude the photographs attached to the Lei
Declaration (Exhibit 1022) as Exhibit A on the ground of hearsay. Paper 64,
1–2. Patent Owner asserts: “[T]hese pictures constitute hearsay as they are
being offered for the truth of the matters asserted therein, namely that there
were displays at the 2014 Canton Fair showing large photos and models of
the Epower-20B and Epower-21 devices.” Id. at 2.
We disagree that either photograph constitutes a statement that there
were displays at the 2014 Canton Fair showing large photos and models of
the Epower-20B and Epower-21 devices. What the photographs depict
depends on and is determined by the in court testimony of Xingliang (Leon)
Lei. It is Mr. Lei who has testified that there was a Carku (Petitioner) booth
at the 2014 Canton Fair and that Carku provided to attendees of the Fair
information about Carku’s Epower-20 and Epower-21 products. Ex. 1022
¶ 3. Mr. Lei authenticated the photographs in Exhibit A of his declaration as
a true and correct depiction of the Carku booth at the Canton Fair: “I have
attached as Exhibit A true and correct copy of photographs showing the
Carku booth at the 2014 Canton Fair, which also show some of the
information Carku provided to attendees about its Epower-20 (including
variants such as the Epower-20B) and Epower-21 products.” Id. Mr. Lei
also testifies: “I appear in the second picture of Exhibit A, wearing a white
shirt, a black belt, and gray slacks and standing on the right side of the

16 Petitioner originally submitted a Declaration of Ms. Yingchun Wan in
support of the Petition. Ex. 1018. However, because Ms. Wan could not be
made available for cross-examination at a suitable location, Petitioner
requested and we authorized the substitution of Ms. Wan’s Declaration by a
Declaration from Mr. Xingliang Lei. Paper 32.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

96
picture.” Id. The photographs do not add anything to the testimony of
Mr. Lei, and Petitioner does not need to rely on the photographs to prevail.
For all of these reasons, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude insofar
as it is directed to the two photographs in Exhibit A of Exhibit 1022.
Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibits B and C attached to the Lei
Declaration. Paper 64, 2–3. Exhibit B is a brochure from the Canton Fair
about the Canton Fair itself, and Patent Owner asserts that it is inadmissible
hearsay for the truth of its contents. Id. at 2. Exhibit C is a press release of
the Canton Fair which states the number of attendees at the Canton Fair, and
Patent Owner asserts that it is offered for the truth of the matter asserted and
thus constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Id. at 3. However, we have not relied
on either Exhibit B or Exhibit C of Mr. Lei’s declaration to support any
determination in favor of Petitioner’s contentions. Thus, exclusion of
Exhibits B and C of the Lei declaration (Ex. 1022) is unnecessary. We deny
Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude insofar as it is directed to Exhibits B and
C of Exhibit 1022.
Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibit D attached to the Lei
Declaration, which are copies of Exhibits 1012 (Epower-20) and Exhibit
1013 (Epowwer-21). Paper 64, 3. In other words, Patent Owner seeks to
exclude Exhibits 1012 and 1013, which are prior art references on the basis
of which Petitioner asserts unpatentability of claims 10–13. Patent Owner
states that it moves to exclude Epower-20 and Epower-21 on the ground that
they do not constitute printed publications. Id.
There are two problems with this assertion and approach. First,
assuming that Epower-20 and Epower-21 do not constitute printed
publications, Patent Owner has not articulated and established any basis for
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

97
determining that they are inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Second, whether Epower-20 and Epower-21 constitute printed publications
based on the supporting testimony of Mr. Lei is a substantive issue on the
merits and should have been raised, if at all, in the Supplemental Patent
Owner Response and/or Corrected Patent Owner Supplemental Response
where Patent Owner first discusses the Lei Declaration. However, the
matter was not raised in those filings. Patent Owner may not properly raise
the issue in a motion to exclude evidence. This argument is belated and not
entitled to consideration.
In any event, in the alternative, even if we do consider the belated
argument, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Epower-20 and Epower-21
each constitute a printed publication. Mr. Lei testifies: “The Canton Fair is
one of the largest trade shows in the world.” Ex. 1022 ¶ 5. The asserted fact
is not disputed by Patent Owner. Mr. Lei also testifies that Carku employees
“handed out brochures describing the Epower-20 and Epower-21 jump
starter products at the 2014 Canton Fair.” Id. ¶ 6. Mr. Lei further testifies:
“Attached to this declaration as Exhibit D are true and correct copies of
brochures describing the Epower-20 and Epower-21 jump starter products
that Carku published and distributed at the 2014 Canton Fair.” Id. This
testimony alone is sufficient to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that Epower-20 and Epower-21 are printed publications.
Patent Owner asserts: “these brochures [Epower-20 and Epower-21]
were at best distributed for a period of only five days and without any
particular estimate of the quantity of brochures that visitors may have taken,
let alone who may have taken them.” Paper 64, 4. Patent Owner further
asserts:
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

98
Mr. Lei further testified that “the people who visited our booth
. . . had a variety of backgrounds. Some of them were
professionals in the field, and others were common buyers who
were interested in our products.” (Ex. 1022 at ¶ 7.) This loose
testimony simply does not provide any basis on which this Board
can conclude that the brochures were adequately distributed to
persons of ordinary skill in the art.
Id. These arguments are unavailing. There is no requirement that brochure
distribution must occur continually during the entire period a trade show is
open or in session. Petitioner’s five-day participation at the 2014 Canton
Fair is substantial and sufficient, even though the entire duration of the 2014
Canton Fair is twenty days. Also, the precise number of attendees who
visited Petitioner’s booth and who actually received copies of Epower-20
and/or Epower-21 does not have critical significance. What is important is
that anyone with an interest in jump starters could have visited Petitioner’s
booth at the 2014 Canton Fair and obtained copies of Epower-20 and
Epower-21. We note again that Mr. Lei has testified that “[t]he Canton Fair
is one of the largest trade shows in the world.” Ex. 1022 ¶ 5. That assertion
is uncontroverted by Patent Owner. Petitioner does not have to keep a
precise tally of the specific backgrounds of all the visitors to its booth.
Patent Owner further argues that because Mr. Lei incorrectly stated in
his Declaration that he attended and worked at the Carku booth “for the
entire 2014 Canton Fair from April 15 to May 5, 2014,” and that Epower-20
and Epower-21 brochures were distributed during the entire period of the
Fair from April 15 – May 5, 2014, Mr. Lei had an insufficient command of
the English language or did not review his declaration carefully enough. PO
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

99
Supp. Resp. 4–5.17 On that basis, Patent Owner asserts that Mr. Lei’s
testimony is suspect and the overall status of Mr. Lei’s Declaration is in
serious question. Id. at 5.
We disagree that the rest of Mr. Lei’s testimony is suspect simply
because he misstated that Petitioner had a booth at the 2014 Canton Fair for
the entire duration of the fair and he worked at the booth for the entire
duration of the Fair. When asked at cross examination about the period of
Petitioner’s attendance at the 2014 Canton Fair, he stated only the first phase
of the Fair, which was from April 15th to April 19th, without hesitation or
reservation. Ex. 2024, 62:10–63:11. The mistake in his Declaration
reasonably could have been be due to an association of his attendance at the
Fair to the duration of the Fair. Without more, we decline to characterize the
rest of Mr. Lei’s testimony as suspect or in serious question.
For all of these reasons, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
insofar as it is directed to Exhibit D of the Lei Declaration (Ex. 1022), which
are copies of Exhibits 1012 and 1013 (Epower-20 and Epower-21).
Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibit E attached to the Lei
Declaration. Paper 64, 3 n.1. Exhibit E is an email sent by Mr. Lei to a
distributor of Petitioner’s products, to which is attached “a product brochure
for Carku’s Epower-21 product and intelligent jumper cable.” Ex. 1022 ¶ 9.
Patent Owner states: “Because the brochure allegedly included with Exhibit
E is not the same as Exhibit D, or Exhibits 1012 or 103, [Patent Owner]
moves to exclude Exhibit E for lack of relevance.” Paper 64, 3 n.1. We

17 Mr. Lei, on cross-examination, testified that Petitioner only participated in
the first phase of the Canton Fair, which was from April 15 to April 19,
2014. Ex. 2024, 62:10–63:11.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

100
have not relied on Exhibit E in the Lei Declaration in any way adverse or
unfavorable to Patent Owner. Exclusion of Exhibit E is unnecessary. We
deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude insofar as it is directed to Exhibit E
of the Lei Declaration (Ex. 1022).
Patent Owner also seeks to exclude the entirety of the Lei Declaration
(Ex. 1022). Paper 64, 1. However, Patent Owner provides no reasons for
exclusion other than those already discussed above with respect to Exhibits
A through E attached to the Lei Declaration. For the same reasons discussed
above, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude insofar as it is directed to
the entirety of the Lei Declaration (Ex. 1022).
2. Exhibits 1026–1029, and 1047
Patent Owner asserts: “These related exhibits comprise contentions or
reports (or portions thereof) prepared in other proceedings by Patent Owner
and/or its expert, Dr. Jonathan Wood and are used by the Petitioner to seek
to undercut Dr. Wood’s credibility.” Paper 64, 6.
Patent Owner asserts that Exhibit 1026 is irrelevant, or that the
probative value of Exhibit 1026 is substantially outweighed by its potential
for prejudice or confusion, citing Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403.
Id. Patent Owner states: “Exhibit 1027 is only a portion of a report by
Dr. Wood regarding infringement of the ’015 Patent by an entity other than
Petitioner. The exhibit is incomplete, as it itself comprises a public portion
of a filing in court that included other, confidential elements.” Id. at 6–7.
Patent Owner asserts that Exhibit 1027 is incomplete, irrelevant, or has a
probative value that is substantially outweighed by its potential for prejudice
or confusion, citing Federal Rules of Evidence 106, 401, and 403. Id.

IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

101
Regarding Exhibit 1028, Patent Owner states that it “comprises
contentions against an entity other than Petitioner, and in this case there is
no evidence that Dr. Wood ever reviewed the documents.” Id. at 7. Patent
Owner further states: “Thus, Patent Owner moves to exclude this exhibit as
lacking authentication under F.R.E. 901 as well as lack of relevance under
F.R.E. 401, or that its probative value is substantially outweighed by its
potential for prejudice or confusion under F.R.E. 403.” Id.
Regarding Exhibit 1029, Patent Owner states: “Exhibit 1029 is an
infringement chart regarding the ’015 Patent from a pending ITC
investigation. However, Dr. Wood testified that he did not recall having
seen Exhibit 1029.” Id. at 7. Patent Owner asserts that Exhibit 1029 lacks
authentication, is irrelevant, or has a probative value that is substantially
outweighed by its potential for prejudice or confusion, citing Federal Rules
of Evidence 401, 403, and 901. Id.
With respect to Exhibit 1047, cross-examination testimony of
Dr. Wood, Patent Owner seeks to exclude “those portions of Dr. Wood’s
testimony pursuant to the objections noted on the record therein discussing
Exhibits 1026–1029,” Id. at 8.
We have not used or relied on the aforementioned materials which
Patent Owner seeks to exclude in any way that supports, adds to, or
otherwise strengthens Petitioner’s assertions on any issue. Thus, it is
unnecessary to exclude them from the record. We deny Patent Owner’s
Motion to Exclude insofar as it is directed to Exhibits 1026–1029, and
portions of Exhibit 1047.

IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

102
3. Exhibits 1030–1037, 1048, and 1050
Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibits 1030–1037, as well as those
portions of Mr. Nook’s deposition transcript (Ex. 1048) and Dr. Kirtley’s
reply declaration (Ex. 1050) that discuss these exhibits. Paper 64, 8. Patent
Owner explains that Exhibits 1030–1037 are emails and attachments that
were originally submitted in this proceeding as sub-exhibits to Ms. Wan’s
Declaration and were not submitted with or referred to in Mr. Lei’s
Declaration which replaced Ms. Wan’s Declaration. Id. Patent Owner
explains:
This being the case, Petitioner has attempted to re-
introduce these exhibits through the “back-door” by asking
Mr. Nook, the alleged recipient or sender of various of the
emails, about them at his deposition. Unsurprisingly, as these
emails were allegedly exchanged between seven and eight years
ago, Mr. Nook testified that he did not recall sending or receiving
the emails in question. (Ex. 1048 at 36–96, passim; 165–176.)
Accordingly, without supporting testimony from Ms. Wan or
Mr. Nook, these emails are unauthenticated, and the alleged truth
of any matter that may be asserted in the emails, particularly by
Ms. Wan, constitutes hearsay outside any exception. Therefore,
Patent Owner moves to exclude these emails, and the related
portions of Mr. Nook’s transcript, under Rules 802 and 901.
Id. at 8–9. Patent Owner further contends that these emails and email
attachments are also irrelevant and highly prejudicial. Id. at 9–10. Patent
Owner explains that Exhibits 1030–1037 make reference to another product
allegedly sold by Petitioner, i.e., the Epower-10, which allegedly includes a
USB charging input, and, yet, the Petition lacks “any reference to the
Epower-10 as a basis for asserting the invalidity of Claims 10–13 in Ground
6.” Id. at 10.

IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

103
We have not used or relied on the aforementioned materials which
Patent Owner seeks to exclude in any way that supports, adds to, or
otherwise strengthens Petitioner’s assertions on any issue, and we are fully
cognizant that no documentation about the Epower-10 product is the basis of
any alleged ground of unpatentability of claims 10–13. Thus, it is
unnecessary to exclude Exhibits 1030–1037 and those portions of Exhibits
1048 and 1050 which make reference to materials in Exhibits 1030–1037.
We deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude insofar as it is directed to
Exhibits 1030–1037, and portions of Exhibits 1048 and 1050 which make
reference to Exhibits 1030–1037.
4. Exhibit 1049
Exhibit 1049 is the cross examination testimony of James Richard
Stanfield, a named co-inventor of the ’015 patent.
Patent Owner asserts:
First, Mr. Stanfield was questioned at length regarding
work he did at a company he had founded prior to joining NOCO
regarding a certain marine battery charging product. (Ex. 1049
at 82–100.) There is no written material in the record regarding
this device, and it is not being relied on by Petitioner as a basis
to challenge any claim of the ’015 Patent. It is beyond the scope
of the declaration that Mr. Stanfield provided (Ex. 2018) and is
irrelevant to any issue in this proceeding. Therefore, Patent
Owner moves to have the Board sustain the objections posed by
counsel on the record at the deposition regarding this testimony.
Paper 64, 13.
We have not used or relied on the aforementioned materials which
Patent Owner seeks to exclude in any way that supports, adds to, or
otherwise strengthens Petitioner’s assertions on any issue. Thus, it is
unnecessary to exclude them from the record.
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

104
Patent Owner also seeks to exclude testimony of Mr. Stanfield
regarding Exhibits 1030–1037 (Ex. 1049 at 116–134, 140–148, 153–179) for
the same reasons it asserts those exhibits and Mr. Nook’s testimony (Ex.
1048) regarding those exhibits should be excluded. Paper 64, 13. As noted
above, however, we deny the request to exclude Exhibits 1030–1037 and
portions of Exhibit 1048 discussing those exhibits.
For the foregoing reasons, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to
Exclude insofar as it is directed to materials within Exhibit 1049.
O. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
Petitioner seeks to exclude Exhibit 2025. Paper 65, 1. Exhibit 2025 is
the cross examination transcript of Dr. James L. Kirtley, dated May 27,
2021, and was submitted by Patent Owner with its Sur-Reply. Id. Petitioner
asserts that Exhibit 2025 should be excluded because it is incomplete, and
that Exhibit 2025 is incomplete because Patent Owner did not also submit a
copy of an exhibit introduced during the cross examination, which was
marked on Exhibit 2025 as Exhibit 1. Id. at 1 (citing Ex. 2025, 137; Federal
Rule of Evidence 403). Petitioner asserts that “[n]early 40 of the 112 pages
of the questioning by Patent Owner’s counsel was about Exhibit 1,” and that
without including Exhibit 1 from the deposition in the record in
this trial, a document that was discussed for over a third of the
deposition, the probative value of the deposition transcript in
Exhibit 2025 is outweighed by confusion of issues associated
with testimony concerning a deposition exhibit that is not in the
record.”
Id. at 1–2.
Petitioner does not inform us whether Patent Owner in any substantive
briefing cites to or relies on portions of Exhibit 2025 which discusses
Exhibit 1 of Exhibit 2025. If not, we do not see why Patent Owner has to
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

105
submit internal Exhibit 1 of Exhibit 2025. In any event, Petitioner has
submitted Exhibit 1 of Exhibit 2025 as Exhibit 1051, when filing
Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Thus, the missing material is now in the
record as Exhibit 1051.
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is denied.
III. CONCLUSION18
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims
1–10 and 12–23 of the ’015 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner has not
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 11 is unpatentable.
The outcome is summarized in the following table:

18 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims
in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this
decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. 84 Fed. Reg.
16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application
or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent
Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related
matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

106
Claims
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Claim Shown
Unpatentable
Claim Not
Shown
Unpatentable
1, 7–9, 15,
17–21
102 Richardson
1, 7–9, 15,
17–21

2, 3, 12–14,
23
103
Richardson,
Lei
2, 3, 12–14,
23

4, 5
103
Richardson,
Krieger
4, 5
6 103 Richardson,
Wanzong
6
16
103
Richardson,
Baxter
16

10, 12, 13 103
Richardson
and either
Epower-20 or
Epower-21

10, 12, 13

11 103
Richardson
and either
Epower-20 or
Epower-21

11
22 103
Richardson,
Richardet
22
1, 7, 21 102 Klang 1, 7, 21
4, 5
103
Klang,
Krieger
4, 5
IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

107
Claims
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Claim Shown
Unpatentable
Claim Not
Shown
Unpatentable
22 103
Klang,
Richardet
22
23 103 Klang, Lei 23
Overall
Outcome

1–10, 12–23 11

IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that claims 1–10 and 12–23 of U.S. Patent No. 9,007,015
B1 have been proved unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,007,015 B1
has not been proved unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of this decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2020-00944
Patent 9,007,015 B1

108
Counsel for Petitioner:

Kevin J. Patariu
Bing Ai
John P. Schnurer
John Esterhay
Perkins Coie LLP
patariu-ptab@perkinscoie.com
ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
schnurer-ptab@perkinscoie.com
esterhay-ptab@perkinscoie.com

Counsel for Patent Owner:

William H. Oldach III
Rex W. Miller, II
William L. Klima
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP
wholdach@vorys.com
rwmiller@vorys.com
wlklima@vorys.com