`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BOSE CORPORATION,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 8,401,682
`_______________
`
`No. IPR2014-00343
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`REPLY OF PETITIONER SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...............................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`“Configured To Respond To Signals Received From The Computer” 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The “Claim Differentiation” Argument Fails .............................2
`
`The Arguments Based in the Specification Fail .........................4
`
`Bose’s “In Response To” Argument Also Fails .........................7
`
`B.
`
`“Audio Signal Processing Circuitry” ....................................................9
`
`III. OBVOUSNESS ................................................................................................9
`
`A. A Person Of Skill in the Art Would Have Made this Combination ....10
`
`B.
`
`The Combination Does Teach All of the Claim Elements .................11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Configured to Respond .............................................................12
`
`Location of the Audio Signal Processing Circuitry ..................12
`
`Connector Within the Housing .................................................15
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,401,682
`
`Exhibit 1002 Operating Instructions for Sony Personal Audio
`System ZS-D7 (1998)
`
`Exhibit 1003 Owner’s Guide for Bose Wave Radio/CD (1999)
`
`Exhibit 1004 Music Boxes Go for a Spin, Popular Science, March 1999, pages
`76-79
`
`Exhibit 1005 User Guide for Creative Nomad Digital Audio Player (June 1999)
`
`Exhibit 1006 New MP3 Players: Music to Your Ears, PCWorld,
`August 19, 1999
`
`Exhibit 1007 What’s New, Popular Science, April 1999, pages 16-17
`
`Exhibit 1008 Press Release, SAMSUNG Electronics Launches “yepp,” the
`World’s Smallest MP3 Player, April 28, 1999
`
`Exhibit 1009 Guy Hart-Davis and Rhonda Holmes, MP3! (Sybex 1999), pages
`65-83
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Internet web pages from http://www.evation.com, dated May 8,
`1999
`
`Exhibit 1011 User Guide for Altec Lansing Computer Speaker System (1998)
`
`Exhibit 1012 Altec Lansing Announces New Products Utilizing the Power of the
`PC for Better Quality Computer Audio, Business Wire, November
`17, 1997
`
`Exhibit 1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,969,283
`
`Exhibit 1014 Deposition Testimony of Paul Beckmann, January 6, 2012, pages
`228-232
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1015 Bose’s List Of Claim Terms For Construction And Proposed
`Constructions, Bose Corp. v. SDI Tech., Inc., et al., D. Mass. No.
`09-11439
`
`Exhibit 1016 Page from the database of the United States Copyright Office
`
`Exhibit 1017 Declaration of Andrew B. Lippman
`
`Exhibit 1018 European Patent Application No. 0 929 170 A2
`
`Exhibit 2101
`
`06-28-2013 Bose’s Preliminary Infringement Disclosure filed in
`Bose Corp. v. SDI Technologies, Inc., Case No. 13-cv- 10277-
`WGY (D. Mass.) (“Bose v. SDI case”)
`
`Exhibit 2102 Excerpts of 01-15-2014 court hearing held Bose v. SDI case
`
`Exhibit 2103 Excerpt from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the
`English Language (unabridged 1993), which includes a copy of the
`reference’s definition of “respond” on page 1935 of that reference
`
`Exhibit 2104 Excerpts of 03-10-2014 Deposition Testimony of Dr. Andrew B.
`Lippman
`
`Exhibit 2105 Operating Instructions for RM-AV2000 Integrated Remote
`Commander by Sony Corporation (1997)
`
`Exhibit 2106 U.S. Patent 5,644,303, titled “Specialized Shaped Universal
`Remote Commander”
`
`Exhibit 2107 U.S. Patent 5,872,562, titled “Universal Remote Control
`Transmitter With Simplified Device Identification”
`
`Exhibit 2108
`
`01-22-2014 Markman Order in Bose Corp. v. SDI Technologies,
`Inc., Case No. 13-cv-10277-WGY (D. Mass.) (Dkt. D110)
`
`Exhibit 2109 U.S. Patent No. 8,364,295
`
`Exhibit 2110 U.S. Patent No. 7,277,765
`
`Exhibit 2111
`
`01-15-2014 Hearing Transcript in Bose Corp. v. SDI
`Technologies, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-10277-WGY (D. Mass.) (Dkt.
`D108)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2112 Excerpt from 09-27-2013 Defendant’s Preliminary Claim
`Construction Brief filed in Bose Corp. v. SDI Technologies, Inc.,
`Case No. 13-cv-10277-WGY (D. Mass.)
`
`Exhibit 2113 Webpage showing the Altec Lansing ADA104 home theater
`speaker system.
`(http://edsgoodstuff.com/edscart/index.php?main_page=produc
`t_info&products_id=3076)
`
`Exhibit 2114
`
`1998 Datasheet for TDA7375A Power Amplifier chip
`
`Exhibit 2115 Excerpts of File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,277,765 (parent
`patent to the ’682 patent)
`
`Exhibit 2116 Excerpts of File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,364,295 (sister
`patent to the ‘682 patent)
`
`Exhibit 2117
`
`July 22, 2014 Patent Owner’s Notice of Objections to Evidence
`
`Exhibit 2118 Excerpts from William Strunk Jr. & E.B. White, The Elements of
`Style (4th ed. 2000)
`
`Exhibit 2119 Excerpts from Laurel J. Brinton & Minoji Akimoto, Collocational
`and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of
`English, John Benjamin’s Publishing 1999
`http://books.google.com/books?id=jW0S0AyhGmAC&printse
`c=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage
`&q&f=false
`
`Exhibit 2120 September 16, 2014 Declaration of Dr. Robert L. Stevenson
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As an initial matter, SDI brings to the Board’s attention the Final Written
`
`Decision in IPR2013-00350, in which the 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. (See Bose v. SDI, Final
`
`Written Decision (“350 Final Written Decision”), IPR No. 2013-00350, Paper No.
`
`36.) This Petition addresses claims that include just one additional feature, which
`
`is clearly taught in these references, as discussed below.
`
`In its Introduction, Bose notes that it raised evidentiary objections to the
`
`subject references in the 350 IPR. Those objections were overruled in the 350
`
`Final Written Decision, with the exception of Bose’s objection to page 7 of Ex.
`
`1011, which the Board also found was not necessary to invalidate all of the claims
`
`in the earlier IPR. Page 7 is also not necessary to invalidate the claims addressed
`
`in this IPR.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“Configured To Respond To Signals
`Received From The Computer”
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Bose argued that “configured to respond to
`
`signals received from the computer” should be construed to be mean “configured
`
`to answer or reply to the computer, i.e., send a responsive communication back to
`
`the computer.” (Paper 12, at 14.) Bose argued that this should be the construction
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`because, according to Bose, the word “respond” is used in the patent in a way that
`
`requires an answer or a reply. (Id. at 15-18.)
`
`In the Institution Decision, the Board considered Bose’s argument, but
`
`nevertheless found that the ordinary and customary meaning of “respond” also
`
`included “to show some reaction to a force or stimulus.” (Paper 13, at 9 (citing
`
`Bose’s Exhibit 2013, a dictionary definition of “respond”).) This of course is part
`
`of the conventional meaning of this word, as, for example, one can “respond” to a
`
`poor grade on an exam simply by studying harder for the next one.
`
`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. (Id. at 9-10.)
`
`In its full Response, Bose argues that (a) “the doctrine of claim
`
`differentiation supports Bose’s Proposed Construction,” (b) “the specification uses
`
`the word ‘respond’ to refer to an answer or reply,” and (c) “the claims’ separate
`
`use of ‘respond’ and ‘in response to’ also supports Bose’s proposed construction.”
`
`None of these arguments (the second which has already been considered) is
`
`sufficient to require Bose’s narrow construction.
`
`1.
`
`The “Claim Differentiation” Argument Fails
`
`For “claim differentiation,” Bose argues that, under the construction adopted
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`by the Board in the Institution Decision, dependent claims 25 and 52 would not be
`
`narrower than their respective independent claims 1 and 28. That is not true.
`
`Bose argues that claims 1 and 28 already describe a system in which the
`
`speaker plays music from the computer because the claims include “one or more
`
`speakers” and “audio signal processing circuitry . . . for powering the one or more
`
`speakers.” (Paper 15, at 9.) Bose then argues that, because claims 25 and 52
`
`provide that the speaker is “configured to respond,” the Board’s construction must
`
`be wrong because what is claimed in claims 1 and 28 is already configured to play
`
`music from the computer.
`
`Bose’s argument fails for being unsupported by the claim language because,
`
`while the independent claims recite a speaker and amplifier, they do not require
`
`that the speakers play music from the computer. (This presumably is not an
`
`accident. Bose wrote these claims to not require the computer because SDI does
`
`not sell a computer (Bose would say that iPods/iPhones used with SDI’s products
`
`are the claimed “computer”) and Bose was trying to make SDI a direct infringer,
`
`having lost an earlier case on the parent when its indirect infringement case failed.)
`
`The independent claims are directed to an “audio system” that includes a
`
`housing, control circuitry, audio signal processing circuitry, a connector
`
`“configured to provide a physical and electrical connection,” and a remote control.
`
`The control circuitry is “configured to receive” control signals. But there is
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`nothing in the claims that requires that the speaker play music from the computer.
`
`In particular, while the claims state that the speakers are “for reproducing
`
`audio signals processed by the audio signal processing circuitry” and that the audio
`
`signal processing circuitry is “for processing audio signals for reproduction,”
`
`nothing in the claim requires that those “audio signals” come from the
`
`computer. The independent claims would cover, for example, a system in which
`
`the speaker was present but did not play music, or only played music from the
`
`audio signal processing circuitry that was supplied to the audio signal processing
`
`circuitry from a source other than the computer.
`
`Because the independent claims do not actually require that the speakers
`
`play music from the computer, Bose’s claim differentiation argument does not
`
`work. In independent claims 1 and 28, the speaker does not need to respond to
`
`signals from the computer (music or otherwise), while the “configured to”
`
`dependent claims (25 and 52) narrow the scope of the independent claims by
`
`requiring that the speakers be configured to respond to the computer.
`
`Because the claims have different scopes under the Board’s construction,
`
`“claim differentiation” does not require a narrower interpretation of “respond.”
`
`2.
`
`The Arguments Based in the Specification Fail
`
`Bose next repeats the arguments it made in the Preliminary Response about
`
`the specification. They have not improved with age.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Basically, Bose’s argument is that “respond” should be limited to its
`
`“answer or reply” construction because that is “consistent” with the specification.
`
`Bose’s the fundamental problem, however, is that the Board’s construction is also
`
`“consistent with” specification.
`
`The Board is obligated to apply the broadest reasonable construction that is
`
`consistent with the specification. See, e.g., SAP America Inc. v. Versata Dev.
`
`Group Inc., CBM2012-00001, Paper 70 at 7-19 (PTAB 2013) (discussing the
`
`rationale for applying broadest reasonable interpretation); Vibrant Media Corp. v.
`
`General Electric Co., IPR2013-00170, Paper 56 at 4-5 (PTAB 2014) (rejecting the
`
`patent owner’s argument that broadest reasonable interpretation standard should
`
`not apply because patent owner decided not to amend its claims).
`
`Bose cannot show, and does not even try to show, that the Board’s
`
`construction—which comes from Bose’s own dictionary definition of this common
`
`word—is unreasonable.
`
`As the Board observed in the Institution Decision, Bose’s arguments about
`
`the specification are based on an aspect of the system different than what is being
`
`claimed and are not described as limiting.
`
`In particular, the first passage Bose cites are about the computer system
`
`responding to the speaker, while the claims concern the opposite arrangement, in
`
`which the speaker is responding to the computer. (See ’682 Patent, Claim 52
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`(“wherein the sound reproduction system is configured to respond to signals
`
`received from the computer”).) Contrary to Bose’s assertions, the distinction is
`
`significant, because Bose’s argument is based on the specific context in which the
`
`term is used in the specification. Bose says that “respond” must have a certain
`
`meaning for specific technical reasons that are inapplicable to how the word is
`
`used in the claims. Because “respond” is never used in the specification in the
`
`context in which it is used in the claims, the specification cannot limit that term in
`
`the claims.
`
`The second passage Bose cites relates to the automatic selection of preset
`
`radio stations in which, according to Bose, the “sound reproduction device replies
`
`back [to the computer] identifying the strongest signals.” (Paper 16, at 12.) In
`
`fact, however, the specification is silent about how the computer determines the
`
`strongest signals for available stations. (See Ex. 1001, at 9:29-34 (“At step 104,
`
`the computer program directs AM/FM tuner 12 to scan the applicable broadcast
`
`frequency band for strong signals. At step 106, the strongest signals are compared
`
`to available stations based on the locator and information about available radio
`
`stations, as discussed above in the discussion of audio system mode operation.”);
`
`Fig. 7.) The specification does not say that the speaker responds to the computer
`
`and, even if it did, it certainly does not amount to a clear disclaimer.
`
`Finally, Bose asserts that it is not seeking to limit the claims to particular
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`embodiments, but instead “is relying on the description of this embodiment as
`
`illustrative of an answer or reply the sound reproduction device may send to the
`
`computer, which is consistent with and supports Bose’s proposed construction.”
`
`(Paper 15, at 14.) To the extent that is understandable, it is incorrect. Bose most
`
`certainly is seeking to use the specification to narrow the meaning of “respond.”
`
`Without a clear disclaimer, that would not be appropriate. See In re Am. Acad. Of
`
`Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against
`
`reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the
`
`specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer
`
`in the specification.”).
`
`3.
`
`Bose’s “In Response To” Argument Also Fails
`
`Finally, 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.” (Paper 14, at
`
`14.) The argument is that “respond” must be limited to an answer or response
`
`because the claims also use a different phrase—“in response to”—to mean a
`
`situation in which there is no answer or reply.
`
`This argument fails, as a matter of logic, because it does not follow that
`
`because one thing means X another does not mean X. In other words, there is no
`
`reason why “respond” and “in response to” cannot have the same meaning. Bose
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`offers no reason why both terms cannot encompass “a responsive action.”
`
`Bose’s arguments are also circular, as they assume a meaning of something
`
`in the claims or file history and then argue that Bose’s conclusion must be correct
`
`based on Bose’s assumption. For example, Bose cites application claim 18, which
`
`stated that the “computer system responds to [the] control signal.” (Paper 15, at
`
`16.) Bose then assumes that this means “answer or reply,” where nothing in the
`
`claim actually says or requires that. Then Bose says that because application claim
`
`18 used “respond” to mean “answer or reply” (according to Bose) the claim
`
`language must mean “answer or reply.” The argument is faulty because there is
`
`nothing in the claim requiring that computer send a signal, or any other answer.
`
`The Board’s construction is also fully “consistent with the general
`
`presumption in patent law that different terms have different meanings” because,
`
`as Bose seems to acknowledge (see Paper 15, n.3), these are simply the same term
`
`expressed as different parts of speech. The choice of “respond” or “in response to”
`
`is simply a matter of how the concept fits with the words around it. The plain
`
`meaning is that sending an answer and taking an action are both things that can be
`
`done as a response to something else; whether that is “responding” to the trigger or
`
`doing something “in response to” the trigger is simply a matter of whether you are
`
`expressing the concept as an infinitive or a prepositional phrase. The underlying
`
`concept is the same.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`* * *
`
`Assuming support in the specification, Bose could have written claims
`
`limited to “answering or replying,” and Bose could have amended its claims in this
`
`IPR to limit them in that way. Having done neither, Bose can hardly complain
`
`about this non-technical language being given its conventional meaning.
`
`B.
`
`“Audio Signal Processing Circuitry”
`
`Bose also repeats the argument made in the preliminary response that “audio
`
`signal processing circuitry” should be construed to exclude amplification. Bose’s
`
`primary argument is that “[Bose’s use of] different claim terms in the two patents
`
`creates a presumption that ‘audio signal processing circuitry’ is not met by an
`
`amplifier.” (Paper 15, at 19.) If that was the intent, it was poorly implemented
`
`because the use of these two different terms simply means that they are not
`
`identical in scope. As the Board correctly found in the 350 IPR, “amplifier” is a
`
`subset of “audio signal processing circuitry.” (350 Final Written Decision, at 10.)
`
`III. OBVOUSNESS
`
`Aside from the “respond” claim construction argument, Bose offers only
`
`non-obviousness arguments that have already been considered and rejected in the
`
`’350 Final Written Decision. (To be fair, the Board had not issued the 350 Final
`
`Written Decision when Bose filed its Response.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`A. A Person Of Skill in the Art 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.” (Paper 15, at 21.) The idea is that a person of
`
`skill in the art would have combined the references in a different way proposed by
`
`Bose that would avoid the claims.
`
`The Board has already considered this argument in the 350 IPR, determining
`
`that “[t]he references do not teach away from Petitioner’s proposed combination.”
`
`(350 Final Written Decision, at 22.) In particular, the Board found that while
`
`“Patent Owner’s evidence suggests that a skilled artisan may have had reasons to
`
`pursue one or the other of its two proposed combinations in certain circumstances .
`
`. . the mere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away.” (Id. at 23-24
`
`(citing In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1332, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2013).)
`
`With respect to Bose’s argument about hindsight, the Board explained that
`
`Bose failed to “show[] that focusing one’s testimony on an allegedly invalidating
`
`combination to the exclusion of other, non-invalidating combinations, evidences
`
`hindsight bias.” (350 Final Written Decision, at 25.) The Board further 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`the speaker” had a rational underpinning. (Id. at 25-26.)
`
`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.” (Id. at 26.)
`
`The arguments Bose makes on these points in this IPR are identical to the
`
`arguments made in the 350 IPR. None of them are based on, or even mention, the
`
`“respond” issue that distinguishes this IPR from the earlier one. As the arguments
`
`are the same, the result should be the same, and Bose’s “teaching away” argument
`
`should be rejected.
`
`B.
`
`The Combination Does Teach All of the Claim Elements
`
`Bose argues that the combination would not satisfy (a) the “configured to
`
`respond” requirement of claims 25-26 and 53-53, (b) the requirement of audio
`
`signal processing circuitry within the same housing as control circuitry, and (c) the
`
`requirement of a connector located at least partially within the same housing as the
`
`control circuitry. The first argument is based on Bose’s improperly narrow
`
`construction of “respond,” and the other two have already been considered in the
`
`350 IPR.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Configured to Respond
`
`In its Response, Bose admits that page 3 of 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.” (Paper 15, at 36-37.) Bose further admits that
`
`“[w]hen audio is received the speaker turns on automatically” due to “audio
`
`sensing circuitry in the speaker.” (Id. at 37.) These admissions are more than
`
`sufficient to show that the system of the combination meets the “the configured to
`
`respond” requirement of claims 25-26 and 53-53, as explained in the Petition.1
`
`Notably, 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, as explained above.
`
`2.
`
`Location of the Audio Signal Processing Circuitry
`
`Bose next argues that the combination would not have “audio signal
`
`processing circuitry,” as that term is construed by Bose to not include an amplifier.
`
`As noted above, however, the Board has already correctly construed “audio signal
`
`processing circuitry” to include amplification.
`
`Bose also argues that the audio signal processing circuitry in the
`
`
`1 It should also be noted that the responses described in the Altec Lansing Manual
`operating to control specific features, such as volume or power.
`
`are more than just playing music provided by the computer—the computer is
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`combination would not be in the same “housing” as the control circuitry. (Paper
`
`15, at 38.) As the Board has already found, however, “the control circuitry taught
`
`in Altec Lansing Manual 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 (e.g., circuitry that receives a signal
`
`from the remote to control the volume of the subwoofer).” (350 Final Written
`
`Decision, at 28.) 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.” (Id.)
`
`Bose does make one effort to improve this argument from the 350 IPR,
`
`asserting that the Petition only identifies the “IR receiver” as the control circuitry.
`
`(Paper 15, at 39.) Bose apparently interprets the Petition to refer to only the single
`
`component in the IRMan device that actually receives the infrared signals. That is
`
`an inappropriately narrow reading of the petition, which further explains that the
`
`IRMan product both “receive[d] the signal” and “converts [the] signals to
`
`computer commands understood by the software in [the] PC.” (See, e.g., Paper 6,
`
`at 17.) In addition, Bose ignores the fact that Dr. Lippman’s Declaration,
`
`submitted as Exhibit 1017 with the Petition, further explained that the “IR
`
`receiver” was “plugged into a computer to control software running on the
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`computer.” (Exhibit 1017, at ¶ 40.) The Petition used the term “IR receiver” to
`
`refer to the entire IRMan device, including the components/cables that connect the
`
`actual IR receiving component to the computer.
`
`Further, as explained by the Board, the decision about where in the system
`
`to place the control circuitry would simply have been a matter of design choice.
`
`(350 IPR Written Decision, at 28 (“We also are persuaded by Petitioner 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.”).) Bose surely cannot
`
`contend that the claims are patentable solely because the control circuitry is in one
`
`place rather than another.
`
`Bose makes an additional argument about the “audio signal processing
`
`circuitry” not being moved from the subwoofer and about extra wires. (Paper 15,
`
`at 42.) This misses the point. It is not that the IRMan and Altec Lansing speaker
`
`would be physically combined, but rather that it would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, looking at the teachings of references as a whole,
`
`to make a system like that in the claims. Here, as the Board has already found, the
`
`claimed inventions are nothing more than known things, combined in conventional
`
`ways, to achieve the expected results.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`3.
`
` 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.” (Paper
`
`15, at 43.) This is the same issue as discussed immediately above. As the Board
`
`has already found that 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 (e.g., circuitry
`
`that receives a signal from the remote to control the volume of the subwoofer),”
`
`this limitation is met. (350 IPR Written Decision, at 28.) Again, deciding where to
`
`place these known components, which are used for their known purpose (e.g., a
`
`connector for connecting), is simply a matter of design choice.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For these reasons, and those stated in the Petition, SDI respectfully requests
`
`that the Board find claims 25, 26, 52, 53, 55-61, and 75 unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`
` /Matthew B. Lowrie/ ..
`Matthew B. Lowrie, Reg. No. 38,228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 25, 2014
`111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 2600
`Boston, MA 02199-7610
`Tel: (617) 342-4000
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Reply was served
`
`electronically on counsel for patent owner Bose Corporation, on November 25,
`2014, in its entirety:
`
`
`
`Dorothy P. Whelan, Reg. No. 33,814
`Whelan@fr.com
`
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`axf@fr.com
`
`Mark J. Hebert, Reg. No. 31,766
`Hebert@fr.com
`
`IPR2556-0006IP2@fr.com
`IPR25556-0007IP2@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`
` /Aaron W. Moore/ ..
`Aaron W. Moore, Reg. No. 52,043
`
`
`
`16
`
`
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
