Petitioner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`
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
