DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Bose Corporation, Petitioner
`v.
`Koss Corporation, Patent Owner
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155
`
`March 8, 2022
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Bose Corporation, Petitioner
`v.
`Koss Corporation, Patent Owner
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155
`
`March 8, 2022
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 4
`
`3
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Challenged Claims - Independent Claim 1
`
`5
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pelland FIG. 6
`
`Ex. 1013, FIG. 6
`
`6
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Williams’s Testimony Is Unreliable
`• To anticipate, a reference
`must enable the
`allegedly anticipated
`claim.
`• Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo
`Found. For Med. Educ. &
`Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 1054
`(Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`Ex. 2024, 45
`
`7
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 4
`
`9
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Challenged Claims – Independent Claim 1
`
`10
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner Does Not Rely on Rezvani
`• Williams’s direct testimony
`• Rezvani, ¶41
`
`Ex.1003, ¶106
`
`11
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner Does Not Rely on Rezvani
`• Williams’s direct testimony
`• Rezvani (Ex. 1016), ¶41
`
`Ex.1003, ¶106
`
`12
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Rezvani
`
`Ex. 1016, ¶¶41, 50
`
`13
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner Formed its Typo Theory
`by the Time of Petition
`
`Williams Deposition Transcript
`Ex. 2026, 47-48
`
`14
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner Formed its Typo Theory
`by the Time of Petition
`… but did not disclose it
`
`Board found Petitioner failed
`to provide evidence as to
`why Rezvani’s ¶41 contains a
`typo.
`
`Institution Decision, 39
`
`“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that
`it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case
`of unpatentability.” PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov.
`2019), 73
`
`15
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Invalidity Grounds Must Be “On the Basis of Prior Art
`Consisting of Patents and Printed Publications” – 35
`U.S.C. §311(b)
`Petitioner contends Rezvani contains several alleged
`typos
`• Not relying on Rezvani as published, but on a revised version
`• Petitioner cannot rewrite the words in Rezvani
`• Expert testimony “cannot take the place of a disclosure in
`a prior art reference, when that disclosure is required as
`part of the unpatentability analysis.” PTAB Consolidated Trial
`Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 36
`
`16
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Williams’s New Typo Opinion is Not Credible
`• New typo theory formed by a method worse than hindsight
`reconstruction
`• Formed typo opinion after reading the ‘155 Patent (Ex. 2026,
`14)
`• Conducted little to no investigation into source of alleged typos
`• Failed to consult with:
`• Listed inventors of Rezvani
`• Patent Attorney(s) who prosecuted Rezvani
`• Patent Examiner for Rezvani (Ex. 2026, 11-12)
`• His review of file history failed to provide “definitively” the
`source of the alleged typos (Ex. 2026, 12)
`
`17
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Typo Theory Defies Practicality
`
`• Exact typing mistake allegedly
`made three times
`• No identification of any other
`typing mistakes in Rezvani
`• Odds of the exact same
`typing mistake in every place
`where a typo is critical to
`support Petitioner’s
`obviousness theory—and
`only those typing mistake—
`are astronomical
`
`18
`
`Williams Deposition Transcript
`Ex. 2026, 11
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Context of Rezvani ¶41 Shows No Typos
`
`• POSA in 2008 would have understood that a handset,
`such as a cellular phone, could switch from one network
`to another (Ex. 2026, 18-23)
`• Rezvani discloses that the handset could be a cell phone (Ex.
`1016, ¶4; Ex. 2026, 21-22)
`• Just because ¶41 begins by describing FIG. 8 does not
`limit all of ¶41 to FIG. 8
`
`19
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Seamless Handoff By Handset ≠ Automatic
`Transitioning by Headset
`• Something can be seamless without being automatic (KOSS-
`2023, ¶¶52-53)
`• Petitioner fails to show a “seamless handoff” is performed
`without external influence or control on the handoff.
`• It is performed by the handset. (Ex. 1016, ¶41)
`
`Ex. 2025, 4-5
`
`20
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 4
`
`22
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Challenged Claims – Claims 1 and 5
`
`23
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`• “The Petition’s first reason for
`Nakagawa-Wilson was implementing
`Nakagawa’s functionality into a stereo
`headphone like Wilson’s.” (Reply, 4)
`
`Bose Reversed its Combination
`Reply
`Petition
`• “Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10 and 14 Would
`Have Been Obvious Over Nakagawa
`in view of Wilson” (Pet., 57)
`• “POSAs would have had several
`reasons to implement
`Nakagawa’s wireless headset
`using Wilson’s form-factor.”
`(Pet., 61)
`Motivations to Combine
`• Making Nakagawa’s headset stereo
`like Wilson (Pet., 61-62)
`• Provide Nakagawa’s headset with
`rechargeable battery and docking
`station (Pet., 61)
`
`Not Applicable
`
`Not Applicable
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Nakagawa’s Sound-Source Switching Device
`Purely Functional
`• “Devices” besides the control
`unit perform the source-
`switching (Ex. 1022, ¶53)
`• A “prior-connection request
`analyzing unit 35 and [a] sound-
`source switching unit 36 are
`devices that accomplish the …
`sound-source switching.” (Ex.
`1022, ¶57)
`• Silent as to the nature and
`structure of the sound-source
`switching devices 35, 36
`• Merely depicted as boxes and
`described in functional terms only
`Ex. 1012, ¶¶53, 57, FIG. 3
`
`25
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Nakagawa’s Sound-Source Switching Device
`Purely Functional
`
`Williams’s Testimony
`Ex. 2026, 44
`
`• Sound switching device
`• Not a term of art; “intrinsic terms” within Nakagawa
`• POSA would not know how to implement them but for Nakagawa’s disclosure (Ex.
`2023, ¶36)
`• Asking POSA to choose an appropriate battery without giving a POSA circuit
`components to be powered
`• No reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 2023, ¶36)
`
`26
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`‘155 Patent Solution
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:43-53
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 3
`
`27
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`McAlexander’s Testimony is Credible
`• McAlexander has experience with audio and acoustic
`engineering (Ex. 1101, 80; Ex. 2023 ¶9 and p. 30)
`• Issue faced by POSA in implementing the Nakagawa
`combinations requires internal headphone design
`experience
`• McAlexander’s experience outweighs Casali’s
`• Casali did not provide opinions relating to wireless
`communication aspects of the challenged claims (Ex. 1005, ¶36)
`
`28
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 4
`
`Claims 11-12
`not challenged
`under Grounds
`3A-3D
`
`29
`
`KOSS-2028
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
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
