`
`Apple Inc. (Petitioner)
`v.
`Koss Corporation (Patent Owner)
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00255
`U.S. Patent No. 10,298,451
`
`Before Hon. David C. McKone,Gregg I. Anderson, and Norman H. Beamer
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1027
`Apple v. Koss
`IPR2021-00255
`
`1
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`Ground
`
`Obviousness over Brown, Scherzer
`
`Obviousness over Brown, Scherzer, Baxter
`
`Obviousness over Brown, Scherzer, Drader
`
`Obviousness over Brown, Scherzer, Ramey
`
`Obviousness over Brown, Scherzer, Gupta
`* Independent claims noted in red
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`1, 6, 11-13, 15-17,
`18, 19, 20
`2, 7-10, 21
`
`3-4
`
`5
`
`14
`
`Koss’s “position focuses exclusively on motivation to combine, and does not
`dispute that the prior art teaches the substantive limitations recited in claims 1-21
`of the ’451 patent (‘Challenged Claims’).”
`
`Petitioner Reply at 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`2
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`The ’451 Patent
`
`Prior Art Asserted Against Independent Claims (Brown, Scherzer)
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Brown-Scherzer Combination
`
`Topics for Discussion
`1 - Scherzer Does Not Teach Away From The Brown-Scherzer
`Combination
`2 - Record Evidence Demonstrates That The Brown-Scherzer
`Combination Was Predictable
`3 - Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness Are Absent – No Nexus
`
`4
`
`6
`
`9
`
`17
`
`18
`
`26
`
`30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`3
`
`
`
`The ’451 Patent
`
`“Systems and methods permit a wireless
`device to receive data wirelessly via an
`infrastructure wireless network, without
`physically connecting the wireless device
`to a computer in order to configure it, and
`without having an existing infrastructure
`wireless network for the wireless device to
`connect to. A remote server hosts a website
`that permits a user of the wireless device to
`input via a computer credential data for at
`least one infrastructure wireless network. The
`content access point transmits the credential
`data for the at least one infrastructure
`wireless network to the wireless device via
`the ad hoc wireless network, such that, upon
`receipt of the credential data for the at least
`one infrastructure wireless network, the
`wireless device is configured to connect to
`the at least one infrastructure wireless
`network.”
`
`APPLE-1001 (’451 Patent), Abstract
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`APPLE-1001, Fig. 1
`
`4
`
`
`
`The ’451 Patent
`
`Focused on “techniques for providing a wireless device with credentials for an infrastructure
`wireless network…”
`
`Petition at 5; APPLE-1001, 2:52-54
`
`1. A system comprising:
`a wireless access point;
`an electronic device;
`a mobile computer device that is in communication with the
`electronic device via an ad hoc wireless communication link; and
`one or more host servers that are in communication with the mobile
`computer device via the Internet, wherein the one or more host servers
`receive and store credential data for an infrastructure wireless network
`provided by the wireless access point, wherein:
`the mobile computer device is for transmitting to the
`electronic device, wirelessly via the ad hoc wireless
`communication link between the electronic device and the
`mobile computer device, the credential data for the
`infrastructure wireless network stored by the one or more host
`servers; and
`the electronic device is for, upon receiving the credential
`data for the infrastructure wireless network from the mobile
`computing device, connecting to the wireless access point via
`the infrastructure wireless network using the credential data
`received from the mobile computer device.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE-1001, 8:30-53
`
`5
`
`5
`
`
`
`Prior Art Asserted Against Independent
`Claims (Claims 1 and 18)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`6
`
`6
`
`
`
`Brown (U.S. Pat. No. 9,021,108)
`
`Brown describes “enabling automatic
`access of a first mobile electronic
`device to at least one network
`accessible by a second mobile
`electronic device” by sending the first
`device credentials needed to access
`that network.
`
`Petition at 16
`“Brown recognizes that configuring a
`new device, e.g., device 101, for
`network access is time consuming
`since data is required to be “manually
`entered into the new device.”
`
`Petition at 18
`
`APPLE-1004 (Brown), FIG. 2; Petition at 19
`
`“…Brown teaches that devices 101 and 105 may establish a
`communication session via local link 190 (e.g., Bluetooth connection)
`over which device 105 transmits configuration data 182 used to
`access a network provided by access point 180.”
`
`Petition at 18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`7
`
`
`
`Scherzer (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2007/0033197)
`
`Scherzer describes systems in which a community of
`registered users can share, through a server, credentials
`used to access each other’s access points.
`
`Petition at 20
`
`…in Scherzer’s system, each user is “able to access the
`Internet, its services and information, from a large number of
`locations.”
`
`Petition at 20-21; APPLE-1005 (Scherzer), [0015], [0020]
`
`…[a] software client enables the user to ‘contact the
`provider's application server in order to obtain access
`information for a location where the user is not able to use
`the user’s own access point’ and gain access to the Internet
`at said location.”
`
`Petition at 22; APPLE-1003 (Cooperstock Declaration), ¶38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`APPLE-1005 at FIG. 4; Petition at 23
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Brown-Scherzer
`Combination
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`9
`
`9
`
`
`
`The Brown-Scherzer Combination
`
`“…Brown recognizes that device
`105 may be mobile and notes that
`a user might access the Internet
`by manually providing device 105
`with credentials for one or more
`WiFi connections…”
`Petition at 25 (citing APPLE-1003, ¶42)
`
`“…a Scherzer-like software client
`installed on device 105 [] enables
`the user ‘to access
`the Internet, its services and
`information, from a large number
`of locations’ using device 105”
`Petition at 26 (citing APPLE-1003, ¶45)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`Institution Decision at 30 (citing Petition at 27)
`
`10
`
`
`
`The Brown-Scherzer Combination
`
`“…a POSITA would have been
`motivated to combine
`Brown and Scherzer given
`advantages to network
`connectivity provided by the
`combination to the types of
`devices described in Brown.”
`APPLE-1003, ¶47; Petition at 27-28
`
`“…two examples that demonstrate
`these advantages.”
`APPLE-1003, ¶47; Petition at 27-28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`Institution Decision at 30 (citing Petition at 27)
`
`11
`
`
`
`The Brown-Scherzer Combination:
`Wireless Access Point Located Outside User’s Business
`
`“This situation creates two problems for the user.”
`1. “…neither of the devices have the necessary
`access information.”
`
`2. “the tablet (which provides a larger screen and
`better viewing experience for media) has no
`cellular connection with which to potentially acquire
`the access information”
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶56; Petition at 30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`12
`
`
`
`The Brown-Scherzer Combination:
`Wireless Access Point Located Outside User’s Business
`
`“…if the access information
`was obtained on the
`smartphone, such information
`could be passed to the tablet
`to enable media streaming on
`that device.”
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶56; Petition at 30
`
`“…a Scherzer-like server (provider
`application server 116) may be
`used to store access information
`for nearby WiFi access points
`belonging to other businesses in
`the business park (which the user
`has not yet gained access to on
`their smartphone or tablet)”
`APPLE-1003, ¶56; Petition at 30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`Institution Decision at 30 (citing Petition at 27)
`
`13
`
`
`
`The Brown-Scherzer Combination:
`Wireless Access Point Located Outside User’s Business
`
`Institution Decision
`“Petitioner’s example
`whereby one device makes
`use of [cellular phone
`connection] capability, and a
`second device, not having
`cellular access, makes use of
`the Brown transfer technique,
`appears to be realistic and
`appropriate.”
`
`Institution Decision at 34.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`Institution Decision at 30 (citing Petition at 27)
`
`14
`
`
`
`The Proposed Brown-Scherzer Combination Involves A
`Single User
`
`Petition
`“…a Scherzer-like software client
`installed on device 105 that
`enables the user ‘to access the
`Internet, its services and
`information, from a large number
`of locations’…”
`Petition at 25 (citing APPLE-1005, [0005], APPLE-1003, 43
`
`Petitioner Reply
`“…the Petition involve[s] a
`registered user with a user
`account accessing credential
`information on a secondary device
`(Brown’s device 101, or a tablet).”
`Petitioner Reply at 13-14
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“By allowing a secondary device of
`a registered user to obtain
`Internet access using network
`credential information stored on a
`Scherzer-like server, the user is
`able to access the Internet on
`multiple devices.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE-1023, 18
`
`15
`
`15
`
`
`
`The Brown-Scherzer Combination:
`Wireless Access Point Located in User’s Business
`
`“…Brown’s disclosed technique of
`exchanging access information
`locally between devices…removes
`the need for the user to manually
`enter access information…”
`APPLE-1003, ¶51; Petition at 28-29
`
`“…a POSITA would have still been
`led to apply Brown’s techniques to
`avoid forcing the user to manually
`enter that access information into
`the tablet…”
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶53; Petition at 29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`Institution Decision at 30 (citing Petition at 27)
`
`16
`
`
`
`Three Topics For Discussion
`
`1. Scherzer Does Not Teach Away From The Brown-
`Scherzer Combination
`
`2. Record evidence demonstrates that the Brown-Scherzer
`combination was predictable
`
`3. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness Are Absent – No
`Nexus
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`17
`
`
`
`Three Topics For Discussion
`
`1. Scherzer Does Not Teach Away From The Brown-
`Scherzer Combination
`
`2. Record evidence demonstrates that the Brown-Scherzer
`combination was predictable
`
`3. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness Are Absent – No
`Nexus
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Brown-Scherzer Combination
`
`“A POSITA would have understood
`incorporating a Scherzer-like software
`client into Brown’s device 105 would
`have improved network access since
`device 105 is described in Brown as a
`mobile device that may connect to
`networks in different locations.”
`Petition at 25; APPLE-1003, ¶44)
`
`Petition
`“Use of a Scherzer-like software client
`would have increased the number of
`WiFi connections available to Brown’s
`device 105 at various locations.”
`
`“Incorporation of a Scherzer-like
`software client and a Scherzer-like
`provider application server would also
`advance Brown’s overall objective of
`improving over manual network
`configurations through automatic
`installation of configuration data on
`device 105.”
`
`Petition at 26; APPLE-1003, ¶45)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`19
`
`
`
`Arguments Against the Brown-Scherzer Combination
`
`POR
`“…a POSITA would not attempt to connect an unregistered device to one of
`Scherzer’s wireless networks via Scherzer’s access credentials…”
`
`POR at 19-20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`POR Relies on Three Arguments
`“…the transmission and use of Scherzer’s access credentials by an unregistered
`device ignores the account acceptability requirement and associated
`tracking in Scherzer, …”
`
`“…a POSITA would be discouraged from allowing the unfettered
`dissemination of access credentials to unregistered devices…”
`
`“…instead of the unrestrained distribution of generally private information (i.e.,
`access credentials to a user’s wireless access point), a more straightforward
`and legitimate approach to improving network connectivity is available.”
`POR at 20-22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`20
`
`
`
`Arguments Against the Brown-Scherzer Combination
`
`1. “ignores the account acceptability requirement and associated tracking”
`
`POPR
`“…the proposed Brown-Scherzer
`combination…would circumvent
`Scherzer’s user contribution
`account tracking by sharing a third
`party’s access credentials with an
`unregistered device.”
`
`POPR at 29
`
`POR
`“…the transmission and use of
`Scherzer’s access credentials by an
`unregistered device ignores the
`account acceptability requirement
`and associated tracking in
`Scherzer, …”
`
`POR at 20
`
`Institution Decision
`“We are not persuaded that combining
`Brown with a Scherzer-like provider
`application client and server necessarily
`would involve the tracking and
`control provisions that Patent Owner
`refers to in its arguments.”
`Institution Decision at 32-33
`
`Petitioner Reply
`“…Scherzer makes clear—on several
`occasions—that teachings relating to
`“account acceptability requirement and
`associated tracking” are limited to
`“some embodiments” and not
`applicable to the disclosure as a whole.”
`Petitioner Reply at 13; APPLE-1005, ¶¶[0015], [0016].
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`21
`
`
`
`Scherzer’s Disclosure
`
`1. “ignores the account acceptability requirement and associated tracking”
`Institution Decision
`Petition
`“Scherzer describes systems in
`“[Scherzer] is directed to a
`collaborative arrangement
`which a community of registered
`users can share, through a server,
`providing wireless network access
`credentials used to access each
`for a number of users to a number
`other’s access points.”
`of separate wireless access
`points.”
`
`Petition at 20; see APPLE-1003, ¶36
`
`Institution Decision at 27 (citing APPLE-1005, ¶14)
`
`Petitioner Reply
`“Scherzer is [] clear that the broadest
`conception of its disclosed invention is
`to facilitate different users to quickly
`download access credentials onto their
`device so that they can access the
`Internet via wireless access points
`located in different locations.”
`Petitioner Reply at 8-9 (citing APPLE-1005, [0015], [0016]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`22
`
`
`
`Arguments Against the Brown-Scherzer Combination
`
`1. “ignores the account acceptability requirement and associated tracking”
`
`POR
`“Petitioner’s obviousness grounds,
`however, ignore important teachings in
`the references.”
`“Utilizing Scherzer’s access
`credentials by an unregistered device
`is technically precluded by
`Scherzer’s system given Scherzer’s
`registration requirements for creating a
`user account and the associated
`tracking of a registered user’s usage of
`the wireless networks.”
`
`POR at 22 and 8
`
`Institution Decision
`“The test for obviousness is not
`whether the features of a
`secondary reference may be
`bodily incorporated into the
`structure of the primary reference.”
`“‘Combining the teachings of
`references does not involve an
`ability to combine their specific
`structures.’”
`
`Institution Decision at 33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`23
`
`
`
`Arguments Against the Brown-Scherzer Combination
`
`2. “unfettered dissemination”
`POPR
`“Freely disseminating such third-
`party access information would lead to
`widespread use of the third party’s
`wireless network…”
`
`POR at 33
`
`POR
`“…a POSITA would be discouraged from
`allowing the unfettered dissemination of
`access credentials to unregistered
`devices…”
`
`POR at 22
`
`PO Sur-Reply
`“…one or both devices 101, 105 further
`disseminating Scherzer’s credentials to
`other devices, which could be unrecognized
`and owned by still different users.”
`
`Institution Decision
`“…the recited difficulties in combining
`the references relied on by Patent
`Owner are less persuasive.”
`Institution Decision at 33
`(citing APPLE-1004, 5:13–14; APPLE-1005, ¶15)
`
`Petitioner Reply
`“…in each example discussed in the
`Petition, the unregistered device that is
`provided with access credentials is
`specifically associated with a
`registered user (i.e., a user that has
`previously registered with Scherzer’s
`service on a registered device). This
`type of credential sharing is not
`“widespread and unfettered.”
`Petitioner Reply at 14
`
`Sur-Reply at 8
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`24
`
`
`
`Arguments Against the Brown-Scherzer Combination
`
`3. Other options existed for improving network connectivity
`Institution Decision
`POPR
`…the teachings in Brown are unnecessary
`“Petitioner’s example whereby one device
`makes use of [cellular phone connection]
`to the straight-forward solution that is set
`capability, and a second device, not having
`forth in Scherzer alone…the second
`cellular access, makes use of the Brown
`example fails to provide a motivation to
`transfer technique, appears to be realistic
`combine the teachings of Brown and
`and appropriate.”
`Scherzer
`
`POPR at 33
`
`Institution Decision at 33-34
`
`Sur-Reply
`“Scherzer explicitly provides that in “some
`embodiments, access information is
`requested before arriving at a given
`location—preloading access information for
`a given location.”
`
`Sur-Reply at 16 (citing APPLE-1005, [0024])
`
`Petition
`“The tablet…does not have a Scherzer-like
`software client for providing network access,
`and is therefore unable to obtain WiFi
`access point configuration…”
`Petition at 28-29 (citing APPLE-1003, 50)
`
`“The Brown-Scherzer combination is
`advantageous in [the second] example
`25
`because the disclosures of either reference
`alone would not provide a better
`solution.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner Reply at 16-17; Petition at 30-34
`
`25
`
`25
`
`
`
`Three Topics For Discussion
`
`1. Scherzer Does Not Teach Away From The Brown-
`Scherzer Combination
`
`2. Record Evidence Demonstrates That the Brown-
`Scherzer Combination was Predictable
`
`3. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness Are Absent – No
`Nexus
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`26
`
`
`
`Predictability of the Brown-Scherzer Combination
`
`PO Sur-Reply
`“Petitioner merely identified predictable
`problems to network connectivity.”
`
`“However, the existence of predictable
`problems does not correlate to the
`predictability of the solution.
`
`Sur-Reply at 12
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“Consistent with Brown, a POSITA would
`have found it predictable to incorporate
`Scherzer’s teachings into the smartphone
`because this incorporation improves the
`capability of the smartphone to connect to
`wireless access points in different locations.
`Scherzer itself also contemplates and
`reinforces the predictable nature of this
`improvement. APPLE-1005, [0005]
`(‘Because of the utility of the information
`and services available on the Internet, it is
`desirable to be able to wirelessly connect to
`the Internet from any location’).”
`
`APPLE-1023 at 48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`27
`
`
`
`Predictability of the Brown-Scherzer Combination
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`“…the combination provides a
`predictable solution to well-known
`problems of network connectivity.”
`
`“The Petition explained that a POSITA
`would have combined Brown and
`Scherzer since it provided ‘advantages
`to network connectivity,’ and
`specifically, WiFi connectivity.”
`Petitioner Reply at 21 (citing Petition at 27-28); APPLE-1003 at 47
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“Brown confirms the predictability of
`this configuration as it describes that
`‘device 105 can be an ‘unconscious carry’
`in that device 105 can be easily carried’
`and that ‘device 105 is more likely to
`encounter new access points and thus
`device 105 is more likely to be configured
`to communicate with more access points to
`communicate with more networks (or have
`more access to the same network) than
`device 101.’ APPLE-1004, 5:10-39.”
`APPLE-1023 at 48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`28
`
`
`
`Predictability of the Brown-Scherzer Combination
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Three Well-Known Concepts
`“…a POSITA would have understood that
`some devices, such as smartphones, would
`have been able to connect to the Internet
`using both cellular and Wi-Fi connectivity.”
`
`“…the POSITA would have understood that
`other computing devices, such as tablets,
`were limited to connecting to the Internet
`using Wi-Fi connectivity since they lacked
`cellular connectivity .”
`
`“…the POSITA would have understood that
`other computing devices, such as tablets,
`were limited to connecting to the Internet
`using Wi-Fi connectivity since they lacked
`cellular connectivity .”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`APPLE-1023 at 34
`
`29
`
`
`
`Three Topics For Discussion
`
`1. Scherzer Does Not Teach Away From The Brown-
`Scherzer Combination
`
`2. Record Evidence Demonstrates That the Brown-Scherzer
`Combination was Predictable
`
`3. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness Are Absent – No
`Nexus
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`30
`
`
`
`Coextensiveness and Presumption of Nexus
`
`Legal Principles
`“A ‘nexus’ between secondary
`considerations evidence and a claimed
`invention is required for the evidence to
`be given substantial weight in the
`obviousness analysis.”
`
`Petitioner Reply at 25-26
`(citing Demaco, 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988))
`
`“…the proponent of the secondary
`considerations evidence bears the
`initial burden of establishing nexus…”
`Petitioner Reply at 26
`(citing Brown, 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000))
`
`“There is a ‘presumption of a nexus’
`when a product that is the subject of
`the evidence is ‘coextensive’ with a
`patent claim.”
`
`Petitioner Reply at 26
`(citing Teva Pharms, 723 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`“…Koss is not entitled to
`this presumption because it
`has failed to demonstrate
`coextensiveness between
`the HomePod and HomePod
`Mini…and the Challenged
`Claims.”
`Koss “maintains the burden
`to establish nexus and…has
`failed to meet that burden.”
`
`Petitioner Reply at 25-26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`31
`
`
`
`Coextensiveness and Presumption of Nexus
`
`There is a “presumption of a nexus” when a product that is the subject of
`the evidence is “coextensive” with a patent claim. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v.
`Sandoz, Inc., 723 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`Petitioner Reply at 25
`
`POR
`“When used with a smartphone (e.g.,
`“iOS device”) and a wireless access
`point, the HomePod possess all the
`elements of independent claims 1 and
`18 of the ’451 Patent.
`
`…T
`
`his process and configuration is
`coextensive with claims 1 and 18
`(APPLE-1014, 488-516), and according
`to Petitioner’s materials the user must
`do these things to “get started” in order
`to enjoy their new HomePod speaker.”
`POR at 43
`
`Petitioner Reply
`“Koss’s entire analysis on
`coextensiveness is limited to two
`paragraphs.”
`
`Petitioner Reply at 27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`32
`
`
`
`Unclaimed Features in Apple HomePod Products
`
`Petitioner Reply
`“at least four examples of
`unclaimed features”
`“(a) two speakers “using both direct and
`reflected audio to deliver amazing audio
`wirelessly for an even more immersive
`experience (KOSS-2016, 4),
`
`(b) functionality as a “home assistance” to “send
`messages, get updates on news, sports, and
`weather, or control smart home devices” (id., 3),
`
`(c) functionality as a “home hub” by “providing
`remote access and home automations through
`the Home app” (id.) and
`
`(d) and “voice control with an array of six
`microphones, so users can interact with it from
`across the room, even while loud music is
`playing” (id., 2).”
`Petitioner Reply at 25; Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`33
`
`
`
`Unclaimed Features in Apple HomePod Products
`
`PO Sur-Reply
`“…other features identified by
`Apple, while unclaimed, are
`not for improving the “heart,” or
`purpose, of the ’451 Patent.”
`FOX Factory, 944 F.3d at 1375
`(finding unclaimed feature
`significant because it went to
`the ‘heart’ or purpose of the
`challenged patent).
`
`PO Sur-Reply at 25
`
`Fox Decision
`“In this case, however, because
`there are one or more features not
`claimed by the '027 patent that
`materially impact the functionality of
`the X-Sync products, including the
`>80% gap filling feature claimed in
`the '250 patent, nexus may not be
`presumed.”
`Fox, 944 F.3d at 1376 (cited by PO Sur-Reply at 25)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`34
`
`
`
`Unclaimed Features in Apple HomePod Products
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`“…unclaimed features in the HomePod
`Products are also critical as they
`materially impact the product’s
`functionality as smart wireless
`speakers.”
`
`Petitioner Reply at 28
`
`“Indeed, in a third-party product review
`that Koss itself cites in its secondary
`considerations evidence, the HomePod
`Products were touted to be ‘a brilliant
`smart speaker, sounding better than
`its rivals.’”
`
`Petitioner Reply at 28 (citing KOSS-2019 at 2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`35
`
`
`
`Nexus Between Challenged Claims and Apple HomePod
`Products
`
`Commercial success evidence “is relevant in the obviousness context only if
`there is proof that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of
`the claimed invention…” In re Huang, 100 F. 3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`Petitioner Reply at 29
`
`PO Sur-Reply
`The POR explained how Petitioner touted the
`original HomePod as a “breakthrough
`wireless speaker” that “will reinvent how we
`enjoy music wirelessly throughout our
`homes...” because of its simple way of
`obtaining WiFi credentials and connecting
`to a wireless infrastructure network. POR, 42
`(citing KOSS-2016, 1-2).”
`
`Petitioner Reply at 29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`36
`
`
`
`Other Reference Slides
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`37
`
`37
`
`
`
`The Brown-Scherzer Combination Involves A Single
`User
`
`PO Sur-Reply
`“Therefore, in contrast to his rebuttal
`testimony (APPLE-1023),
`Cooperstock admitted that the
`Brown-Scherzer combination is not
`limited to both devices being
`commonly-owned. KOSS-2023.”
`
`PO Sur-Reply at 21
`
`Cooperstock
`Deposition Transcript
`Q. Apart from the two examples that you
`provide in your declaration, in general, in
`the Brown-Scherzer combination, can
`mobile device 101 and mobile device 105
`be associated with different users?
`
`A. Well, since Scherzer doesn't explicitly
`teach anything that would prohibit sharing
`of credential information from one user to
`another user, in general, the combination
`that I described does not preclude that
`either. But that's not what I've put forth
`in the two examples that I used in my
`original declaration and to which I refer
`to in my supplemental declaration.
`KOSS-2023, 16:14-17:4 (cited in PO Sur-Reply at 21)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`38
`
`
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`
`Cooperstock Deposition Transcript
`Q. In the Brown-Scherzer
`A: …Scherzer does not describe any
`combination, the Brown-Scherzer
`restrictions imposed on a registered
`combination on page 30, is it limited
`user with what they can do with
`to the device 105 and device 101
`downloaded network credential
`being associated
`information. And in particular, there's
`with the same user?
`no express teaching clearly
`disparaging the notion of providing
`the network credential information to
`another device or providing the
`network credential information to
`other users. But in my examples, I've
`described them as being multiple
`devices belonging to the same user.
`KOSS-2023 at 15:21-16:5
`
`A. Once again, in the examples that
`I've provided in my initial declaration
`on this file, the combination is
`described with respect to multiple
`devices belonging to a user or the
`user.
`
`KOSS-2023 at 15:7-14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`39
`
`
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`
`Cooperstock
`Deposition Transcript
`Q. Would it defeat the purposes of Scherzer
`to limit what devices or how many devices a
`user can connect to Scherzer's access
`points?
`
`A. Both Brown and Scherzer fundamentally
`share an objective of improving network
`access, and in that respect, Scherzer's intent
`of allowing a user to share network
`credentials between that user's devices is
`certainly something that Scherzer holds as
`an objective. And as such, there would not
`seem to be, in general, a reason why a
`POSITA implementing the Brown-Scherzer
`combination would wish to restrict a user's
`ability to share network credential
`information between any number of their
`devices.
`
`KOSS-2023 at 18:16-19:7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`40
`
`