UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SDI Technologies, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`Bose Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00343 and IPR2014-00346
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,401,682 and 8,364,295
`
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SDI Technologies, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`Bose Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00343 and IPR2014-00346
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,401,682 and 8,364,295
`
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`The ’682 and ’295 Patents
`
`2
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`The Patents
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`The Patents
`
`4
`
`IPR343, Paper 6, at 6; IPR346, Paper 6, at 6
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`’295 Patent, Claim 1
`
`5
`
`IPR346, Ex. 1001
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`’682 Patent, Claim 1
`
`6
`
`IPR343, Ex. 1001
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`Results of Earlier IPRs
`
`7
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`IPRs 2013-00350 & 00465
`
`IPR2013-350 (’682 Patent): [T]he Board found claims
`1-21, 24, 27, 28, 30- 48, 51, 54, 62, 63, 67-70, 73, 74 of
`the ’682 patent unpatentable in view of the same prior
`art that forms the basis for this proceeding.
`IPR2013-465 (’295 Patent): [T]he Board found claims
`1-21, 24, 27, 29-47, 50, 63, 64, 68-70, 73, 74, 77, and 78
`of the ’295 patent unpatentable in view of the same prior
`art that forms the basis for this proceeding.
`• These Petitions address claims that include just one
`additional feature.
`IPR 343, Paper 17, at 1; IPR346, Paper 17, at 1
`
`8
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`9
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`•
`
`“Configured To Respond To Signals
`Received From The Computer”
`
`In the Institution Decision, the Board considered
`Bose’s argument, but found that the ordinary and
`customary meaning of “respond” also included “to
`show some reaction to a force or stimulus.”
`• The Board determined that the portions of the
`specification cited by Bose did “not describe the
`structure of the claim language,” did not define or
`describe restrictively what it means to “respond,” and
`were simply examples that were not described as
`limiting.
`IPR343, Paper 17, at 2; IPR346, Paper 17, at 2
`
`10
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`“Configured To Respond To Signals
`Received From The Computer”
` The ‘Claim Differentiation’ Argument Fails
`
`• Bose argues that, because claims 25 and 51
`provide that the speaker is “configured to
`respond,” the Board’s construction must be wrong
`because what is claimed in claims 1 and 25 is
`already configured to play music from the
`computer.
`[W]hile the independent claims recite a speaker
`and amplifier/signal processor, they do not
`computer.
`IPR343, Paper 17, at 3-4; IPR346, Paper 17, at 3-4
`
`require that the speakers play music from the
`
`•
`
`11
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`“Configured To Respond To Signals
`Received From The Computer”
`
`12
`
`IPR346, Ex. 1001, Claim 1
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`“Configured To Respond To Signals
`Received From The Computer”
`
`13
`
`IPR343, Ex. 1001, Claim 1
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`“Configured To Respond To Signals
`Received From The Computer”
` The Arguments Based on the Specification Fail
`
`• Bose’s argument is that “respond” should be limited
`to its “answer or reply” construction because that is
`“consistent” with the specification.
`• The Board’s construction is also “consistent with”
`the specification.
`• Bose cannot show, and does not even try to show,
`that the Board’s construction—which comes from
`word—is unreasonable.
`IPR343, Paper 17, at 4-5; IPR346, Paper 17, at 4-5
`
`Bose’s own dictionary definition of this common
`
`14
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`“Configured To Respond To Signals
`Received From The Computer”
` The Arguments Based on the Specification Fail
`•
`
`[T]he first passage Bose cites is about the
`computer system responding to the speaker, while
`the claims concern the opposite arrangement, in
`which the speaker is responding to the computer.
`• The second passage Bose cites relates to the
`automatic selection of preset radio stations, but
`the specification is silent about how the computer
`determines the strongest signals for available
`stations.
`IPR343, Paper 17, at 5-6; IPR346, Paper 17, at 5-6
`
`15
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`“Configured To Respond To Signals
`Received From The Computer”
`• Bose’s ‘In Response To’ Argument Also Fails
`
`•
`
`• Bose argues that “the separate use of the terms
`‘respond’ and ‘in response to’ in the claims (and in
`the claims of related patents, as well as the
`prosecution history) also supports Bose’s
`proposed construction.”
`[I]t does not follow that because one thing means
`X another does not mean X.
`[T]here is no reason why ‘respond’ and ‘in
`response to’ cannot have the same meaning.
`IPR343, Paper 17, at 7-8; IPR346, Paper 17, at 7-8
`
`•
`
`16
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`Ground I
`IRMan + Altec Lansing
`
`17
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`IRMan + Altec
`
`Bose Patents:
`
`IRMan + Altec:
`
`18
`
`IPR343, Paper 6, at 6, 11; IPR346 Paper 6, at 6, 11
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`IRMan + Altec
`
`Aside from the ‘respond’ claim
`construction argument, Bose offers
`only non-obviousness arguments
`that have already been considered
`and rejected in the [350/465] Final
`Written Decision.
`
`IPR343, Paper 17, at 9; IPR346 Paper 17, at 9
`
`19
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`IRMan + Altec
`A POSITA Would Have Made this Combination
`
`• Bose first argues that the instituted ground of
`rejection is defective because “a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would not have combined the
`references as proposed in the Amended Petition.”
`• The Board has already considered this argument in
`the earlier IPRs, determining that “[t]he references
`do not teach away from Petitioner’s proposed
`combination.”
`
`IPR343, Paper 17, at 10; IPR346, Paper 17, at 9
`
`20
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`IRMan + Altec
`A POSITA Would Have Made this Combination
`
`• [T]he Board found that “the mere disclosure of
`alternative designs does not teach away.”
`• The Board also found that Dr. Lippman’s testimony
`that “a skilled artisan would have made the proposed
`combination in order to reduce duplication and
`clutter, such that one remote would control both the
`speaker and the computer and using the IR receiver
`positioned in the speaker” had a rational
`underpinning.
`
`IPR343, Paper 17, at 10-11; IPR346, Paper 17, at 9-10
`
`21
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`IRMan + Altec
`A POSITA Would Have Made this Combination
`
`• The Board correctly concluded that “Patent
`Owner’s two combinations and Petitioner’s
`combination together constitute three
`rearrangements of the same elements, where
`each of those combinations is a predictable use
`of the elements for their intended purposes” and
`that “[p]recisely how to arrange these known
`elements would have been an obvious matter of
`design choice.”
`IPR343, Paper 17, at 11; IPR346, Paper 17, at 10
`
`22
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`IRMan + Altec
`The Combination Does Teach All Claim Elements
` Configured to Respond
`
`•Bose admits that the Altec Lansing Manual
`“discloses that the user is able to adjust the volume
`of the speakers, e.g., by having the computer
`transmit a command via USB to the speaker system,
`which then adjusts the amplifier settings.”
`•Bose further admits that “[w]hen audio is received
`the speaker turns on automatically” due to “audio
`sensing circuitry in the speaker.”
`IPR343, Paper 17, at 12; IPR346, Paper 17, at 11
`
`23
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`IRMan + Altec
`The Combination Does Teach All Claim Elements
` Configured to Respond
`
`•“Bose does not argue that the combination does not
`meet this claim limitation under the Board’s
`construction.”
`•“Bose’s argument on this limitation is based
`entirely on its claim construction, which is
`incorrect.”
`IPR343, Paper 17, at 12; IPR346, Paper 17, at 11-12
`
`24
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`IRMan + Altec
`The Combination Does Teach All Claim Elements
` Location of the Amplifier/Signal Processing
`
`•Bose argues that the amplifier/signal processor in
`the combination would not be in the same
`“housing” as the control circuitry.
`•As the Board has already found “the control
`circuitry . . . is not limited to the IR receiver
`positioned on the satellite speaker, but rather
`includes circuitry in the subwoofer that receives
`commands from the remote control via the IR
`receiver . . . .”
`
`IPR343, Paper 17, at 12-13; IPR346, Paper 17, at 12
`
`25
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`IRMan + Altec
`The Combination Does Teach All Claim Elements
` Location of the Amplifier
`
`•The Board also agreed with SDI that “where to
`locate the particular circuitry would have been a
`predictable matter of design choice, with the
`circuitry performing the same intended function
`regardless of whether it is located in the subwoofer
`or a satellite speaker.”
`
`IPR343, Paper 17, at 14; IPR346, Paper 17, at 12
`
`26
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`IRMan + Altec
`The Combination Does Teach All Claim Elements
` Connector Within the Housing
`
`•Bose finally argues that the combination would not
`have a “connector located at least partially within”
`the same housing as the control circuitry.
`•As the Board has already found “control circuitry is
`not limited to the IR receiver positioned on the
`satellite speaker, but rather includes circuitry in the
`subwoofer that receives commands from the
`remote control via the IR receiver.”
`IPR343, Paper 17, at 15; IPR346, Paper 17, at 13-14
`
`27
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`28
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`IPRs 2013-00350 & 00465
`
`The very same arguments made by Bose
`in the present Motion were already
`considered and rejected by this panel in
`two earlier proceedings in which other
`claims of the ’682 patent and the ’295
`patent were found unpatentable.
`IPR343, Paper 21, at 1; IPR346, Paper 21, at 1
`
`29
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`Authentication is a Low Bar
`
`“’[T]he burden to authenticate under Rule 901
`is not high—only a prima facie showing is
`required,’ and a ‘district court’s role is to serve
`as gatekeeper in assessing whether the
`proponent has offered a satisfactory foundation
`from which the jury could reasonably find that
`the evidence is authentic.’”
`United States v. Hassan,
`742 F.3d 104, 133 (4th Cir. 2014)
`IPR343, Paper 21, at 2; IPR346, Paper 21, at 2
`
`30
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`Authentication is a Low Bar
`
`“The burden of authentication does not require the
`proponent of the evidence to rule out all possibilities
`inconsistent with authenticity, or to prove beyond
`any doubt that the evidence is what it purports to be.
`Rather, the standard for authentication, and hence
`for admissibility, is one of reasonable likelihood.”
`United States v. Holmquist,
`36 F.3d 154, 168 (1st Cir. 1994)
`IPR343, Paper 21, at 2; IPR346, Paper 21, at 2
`
`31
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`The Altec Lansing Manual
`
`• Fed. R. Evid. 902(7) provides that a document with “[a]n
`inscription, sign, tag, or label purporting to have been affixed in
`the course of business and indicating origin, ownership, or
`control” is self-authenticating and “require[s] no extrinsic
`evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted.”
`• Ex. 1011 bears the following logo and copyright notice:
`
` • Exhibit 1011 is, therefore, self-authenticating.
`IPR343, Paper 21, at 3; IPR346, Paper 21, at 3
`
`32
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`The Altec Lansing Manual
`
`• Bose does not challenge the authenticity of the
`Altec Lansing Manual as a whole; it only
`contests the authenticity of page 7.
`• At most, Bose might seek to exclude page 7.
`That narrow issue, however, is one that need
`not be reached, because the other pages of the
`manual, which Bose does not have any
`legitimate basis to exclude, are sufficient to
`show all of the features required to invalidate.
`IPR343, Paper 21, at 3-4; IPR346, Paper 21, at 3-4
`
`33
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`The IRMan Web Pages
`
`• Ex. 1010 bears the same distinctive characteristics as
`Exhibit 2002 in the 465 IPR, offered by Bose as a
`different page of the Internet Archive for the same
`underlying web site.
`
`34
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`IPR465, Ex. 2002
`
`IPR343, Paper 21, at 5-6; IPR346, Paper 21, at 5-6
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`The IRMan Web Pages
`
`• Rule 901(b)(4) provides for authentication by “Distinctive
`Characteristics and the Like” such as “[t]he appearance,
`contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive
`characteristics of the item, taken together with all the
`circumstances.”
`
`35
`
`IPR343, Paper 21, at 5; IPR346, Paper 21, at 5
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`The IRMan Web Pages
`
`•
`
`• Bose does not argue that Exhibit 1010 does not
`accurately represent archive pages of evation.com
`captured on May 8, 1999.
`In fact, as before, Bose challenges absolutely nothing
`about the exhibit itself.
`• Bose’s failure to contest the authenticity of the
`document is particularly glaring given that the URL at
`the bottom of Exhibit 1010 is fully operational,
`bringing any web browser to that particular
`evation.com record in the Internet Archive.
`IPR343, Paper 21, at 6-7; IPR346, Paper 21, at 6-7
`
`36
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`The IRMan Web Pages
`
`“[A]uthentication may be accomplished by the court taking
`judicial notice under Rule 201 of certain foundational facts
`needed to authenticate an electronic record.”
`“Under this rule, the parties may request the court to take
`judicial notice of adjudicative facts that are either (1)
`generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the
`trial court, or (2) capable of accurate and ready
`determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot
`reasonably be questioned.”
`
`Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co.,
`241 F.R.D. 534, 553 (D. Md. 2007)
`IPR343, Paper 21, at 9; IPR346, Paper 21, at 9
`
`37
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`The IRMan Web Pages
`
`“As a resource the accuracy of which cannot
`reasonably be questioned, the Internet Archive has
`been found to be an acceptable source for the taking of
`judicial notice.”
`
`Pond Guy v. Aquascape,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85504 (E.D. Mich. June 24, 2014)
`
`38
`
`IPR343, Paper 21, at 10; IPR346, Paper 21, at 10
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`The IRMan Web Pages
`
`Taken together,
`[1] the unique indicia of Exhibit 1010,
`[2] Bose’s own Exhibit 2002 bearing the same indicia,
`[3] Bose’s failure to raise any question about the
`document itself,
`[4] Dr. Lippman’s testimony,
`[5] the fact that the URL can be used by anyone to verify
`the document now, and
`[6] judicial notice of ‘a resource the accuracy of which
`cannot reasonably be questioned,’
`are more than enough to establish a “reasonable likelihood” of
`authenticity of Exhibit 1010.
`IPR343, Paper 21, at 11-12; IPR346, Paper 21, at 11-12
`
`39
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`The IRMan Web Pages
`
`• A prior art document submitted as a “printed
`publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is offered simply
`as evidence of what it described, not for proving the
`truth of the matters addressed in the document.”
`IPR2013-00086 (Paper 66, May 15, 2014), at 32.
`• Because Ex. 1010 is offered for what says, not the truth
`of what it says, it is not hearsay.
`If Bose’s reply argument were correct, Internet Archive
`web pages, would always be inadmissible hearsay, as
`would, apparently, virtually all other documents.
`IPR343, Paper 21, at 13; IPR346, Paper 21, at 13
`
`•
`
`40
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`Lippman Testimony
`
`• The Board has rejected this argument at least twice:
`– first reasoning that “just because better alternatives exist in the
`prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for
`obviousness purposes;”
`– then explaining that “Patent Owner’s evidence suggests that a
`skilled artisan may have had reasons to pursue one or the other
`of its proposed combinations in certain circumstances,
`[however] the mere disclosure of alternative designs does not
`teach away.”
`• There is no requirement that, in explaining how a
`combination of references renders patent claims
`obvious, an expert must discuss all other possible ways
`of combining the references.
`IPR343, Paper 21, at 13-15; IPR346, Paper 21, at 13-15
`
`41
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`
`Matthew B. Lowrie
`Aaron W. Moore
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 2500
`Boston, MA 02199-7610
`Tel: (617) 342-4000
`Fax: (617) 342-7070
`
`42
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
