The Noco Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 17, 2021

IPR2020-01387 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11
571-272-7822 Date: May 17, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

SHENZHEN MEDIATEK TONG TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE NOCO COMPANY,
Patent Owner.

IPR2020-01387
Patent 9,007,015 B1

Before JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. McKONE, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION
Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
37 C.F.R. § 42.71

IPR2020-01387
Patent 9,007,015 B1
2
I. INTRODUCTION
On March 8, 2021, Petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 10,
“Reh’g Req.”) under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(c) and 42.71(d)(2) to seek
modification of the Board’s Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes
Review (Paper 9, “Decision” or “Dec.”) of claims 1–3, 5, 8–17, 19–21, and
23 of U.S. Patent No. 9,007,015 B1 (“the ’015 patent”).
The Request is denied.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When rehearing a decision on institution, we do not review the merits
of the decision de novo, but instead review the decision for an abuse of
discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a
“decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous
factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v.
Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show
that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally,
the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party
believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.
III. ANALYSIS
There is a requirement in claim 1 that the power switch “is not turned
on when signals from said sensors indicate [. . .] the absence of a vehicle
battery at said output port.” Ex. 1001, 8:26–34. We determined in the
Decision that Petitioner did not sufficiently show that Zhang1 discloses that

1 Chinese Utility Model App. 20122023580.X (Ex. 1005) (English
translation at Ex. 1006). Hereinafter, citations to Zhang are to Ex. 1006.
IPR2020-01387
Patent 9,007,015 B1
3
limitation. Paper 9, 31–33. Petitioner asserts that in making that conclusion,
the Board “misapprehended the language of Zhang’s disclosure, and gave
credence to Patent Owner’s mischaracterizations thereof.” Reh’g Req. 3.
Specifically, Petitioner asserts that “[t]he Board’s error involves its
interpretation of the language in paragraph 50 of Zhang.” Id. at 4.
For the limitation at issue, Petitioner relied on paragraph 50 of Zhang.
Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 50; Ex. 1003 ¶ 59); Reh’g Req. 3. The pertinent
part of Zhang’s paragraph 50 is reproduced below:
3.1 Correct 12 V gear connection, conduction and
prompt: set the change-over switch at the 12 V gear. When the
microcontroller detects that the voltage at “OUT+” and
“BAT1+” is within the range of the 12 V gear, the jump starter
automatically reports the 12 V gear position voice prompt. At
the same time, the voltage at the two terminals of the 12 V battery
is sampled in two ways, where one way is connected to the input
terminal of the DC contactor, so that the microcontroller can
detect the effective voltage value within the range of the 12 V
gear at the “BAT+/External” point. The other way is sampled
using the small teeth of the power clip. The internal conductor
wire of the power clip wire is connected to the “J1” port of the
control board, and after the correct connection signal is converted
by R5, D8, and IC5, the external correct connection signal
“RIGHT-Ctrl” is transmitted to the P13 port of the
microcontroller.
Ex. 1006 ¶ 50 (emphasis added). The Decision explained:
We recognize that Paragraph 50 of Zhang describes two
ways to measure the voltage “at the two terminals” of the vehicle
battery, and the other way is by the small teeth of the output
power clip. Ex. 1006 ¶ 50. But Zhang describes the two ways as
occurring “at the same time,” and not as alternative
implementations. Thus, measurements at both points are taken
to obtain the voltage at the two terminals of the vehicle battery.
Dr. Hartup does not address or explain how a measurement can
be taken at the input terminal of the DC contactor that would be
indicative of the voltage of the external vehicle battery connected
IPR2020-01387
Patent 9,007,015 B1
4
to the output terminal of the DC contactor, if the DC contactor is
not already closed. Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. The Petition does not address
Zhang’s disclosure of measuring the voltage of the vehicle
battery on the input side of the DC contactor at the same time a
measurement is taken by the small teeth of the output power clip.
Paper 9, 33 (emphasis added).
Petitioner argues that the Board incorrectly determined that Zhang
describes the two ways to measure the voltage of the vehicle battery as
occurring at the same time. Reh’g Req. 6. In the Rehearing Request,
Petitioner contends that the “[a]t the same time” phrase in paragraph 50 of
Zhang refers to the preceding sentence, and thus Zhang does not require, in
paragraph 50 or elsewhere, that the two voltage sampling ways must occur at
the same time or in any particular order. Id. at 6–7.
The contention is not entitled to consideration, because Petitioner does
not identify where this position of Petitioner was previously presented in the
Petition or in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
The “[a]t the same time” phrase is a prominent portion of Zhang’s paragraph
50 and has significant relevance but was not addressed by Petitioner, either
in the Petition or in a reply (Petitioner did not request to discuss this issue in
its Reply) after Patent Owner called specific attention to the phrase in the
Preliminary Response. It is too late for Petitioner to start addressing, in the
Rehearing Request, a matter that it should have addressed in the Petition, or
at the latest possibly in a reply.
Alternatively, even considering the reading of “[a]t the same time”
first set forth by Petitioner in the Rehearing Request, Petitioner has shown
no error. Whether “[a]t the same time phrase” refers to the prior sentence, as
Petitioner contends, it is contained in the sentence in which it appears and
thus, the two actions in the containing sentence, i.e., the voltage sampling
IPR2020-01387
Patent 9,007,015 B1
5
ways, are also referred to by the phrase. Under Petitioner’s interpretation,
the two actions have to occur at the same time as the action in the previous
sentence, which is fully consistent with our reading that the two actions have
to occur at the same time.
Petitioner additionally asserts that the “[a]t the same time” phrase in
paragraph 50 of Zhang refers to the measuring of the voltages at the two
terminals of the vehicle battery and not the two ways of measuring the
voltage of the vehicle battery. Reh’g Req. 6. The contention is not entitled
to consideration because it is belatedly raised similar to the argument that
the phrase refers to the previous sentence, as discussed above. Also, the
argument is not persuasive, because the subject of the sentence containing
the phrase “[a]t the same time” are the two ways of measuring the voltage of
a vehicle battery, not sub-steps within each way. Further, Petitioner explains
no significance for whether the two terminals of the battery are measured at
the same time.
Finally, in the Rehearing Request, Petitioner argues:
In fact, as Petitioner demonstrated in its Petition, Zhang discloses
that when the “battery is sampled by the small teeth of the power
clip,” and “detects that the external battery is connected in
reverse polarity,” “the DC contactor will maintain its
disconnected state.” (Petition at 14–15 (quoting EX1006 at
¶0051) (emphasis added)). Thus Zhang explicitly discloses that
the DC contactor is disconnected when the small teeth of the
power clip are used to sample the battery.
Reh’g Req. 7. The argument is both misplaced and unpersuasive. It is taken
from a part of the Petition that addresses detecting whether the vehicle
battery is connected in reverse polarity (both at top and bottom of page 15 of
the Petition), which is a different limitation. We determined, on the basis of
that disclosure, that the other limitation has been sufficiently shown by
IPR2020-01387
Patent 9,007,015 B1
6
Petitioner. Paper 9, 32. Petitioner cannot now change the application of its
argument to a different limitation. Even if that argument is applied to the
limitation at issue here, it is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, the
disclosure pertains to whether the vehicle battery is connected in reverse
polarity, not whether a vehicle battery is connected at all. Second, the
argument conflicts with the disclosure from Zhang’s paragraph 50, discussed
above, and the Petition provides no explanation in that regard.
IV. CONCLUSION
Petitioner does not persuade us that we overlooked or misapprehended
any matter, or sufficiently show that not instituting an inter partes review of
claims 1–3, 5, 8–17, 19–21, and 23 of the ’015 patent was an abuse of
discretion.
V. ORDER
It is
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.

IPR2020-01387
Patent 9,007,015 B1
7
For PETITIONER:

Justin Kimble
Jerry Tice
BRAGALONE CONROY PC
JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com
jtice@bcpc-law.com

For PATENT OWNER:

William Oldach
Rex Miller
William Klima
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE, LLP
wlklima@vorys.com
wholdach@vorys.com
rwmiller@vorys.com