`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 40
`Date: April 13, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BOSE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 8, 2022
`
`
`BEFORE: DAVID C. McKONE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`MICHAEL N. RADER, ESQUIRE
`NATHAN R. SPEED, ESQUIRE
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue, 27th Floor
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MARK G. KNEDEISEN, ESQUIRE
`K&L GATES, LLP
`K&L Gates Center, 210 Sixth Avenue
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`March 8, 2022, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
` (Proceedings begin at 1:00 p.m.)
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Good day to everyone.
` We are here in a hearing for IPR 2021-00297.
`Petitioner Bose Corporation, and Koss Corporation is the
`owner of the challenged patent, U.S. Patent No.
`10,368,155 B2.
` Administratively, let me identify myself. I am
` Judge Anderson. I am joined here today by Judges McKone and
` Beamer. We're all, and you all are as well, participating
` via teleconference, so keep that in mind.
` As to demonstrative exhibits, you need to make sure
` to refer to the slide number so we can follow along.
` I am a big offender of this, but I will encourage
` everyone to identify themselves when they speak. Like I
` say, I don't always do that, and my apologies to our court
` reporter if I slip up. Hopefully everybody can do that.
` Each party is going to have 60 minutes, per the
` order setting this hearing, to present argument.
` Petitioner, you have the burden so you will proceed first,
` and you may reserve rebuttal time to address patent owner's
` arguments. Patent owner may likewise reserve some
` surrebuttal time to respond to the rebuttal of the
` petitioner.
` We will keep track of the time, but we expect you
` all to also understand where you are in your argument, how
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
` much time you've used, how much time you have left.
` Let me just note, we didn't receive any objections
` to the demonstratives so we're proceeding on the basis that
` there are none.
` If you do have an objection to an argument being
` made by the opposing party, please note it and address it
` during your time period. We don't want to interrupt
` people's presentations. I think it's very important that we
` have continuity in that regard.
` At this time, let's have counsel introduce
` themselves, starting with petitioner.
` Who is there for petitioner?
` MR. RADER: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm Mike Rader
`from Wolf Greenfield & Sacks on behalf of Bose.
` With me is my colleague, Nathan Speed.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Your audio was very poor for me,
`Mr. Rader.
` Can everybody else hear him better? Maybe it's me.
` UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.
` MR. RADER: Okay. Let me attempt to fix that before
`we start.
` THE TECHNICIAN: Mr. Rader, the fix for that would
`be just, since you're using computer audio, try to get as
`close as you can to the microphone on your laptop or, if you
`have another phone, just -- just dial in with the number
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`provided. That might be easier.
` MR. RADER: Sure. Let me just ask, because I'm now
`closer to the computer. Is it better or should I dial in?
` JUDGE ANDERSON: It's better. Counsel for -- okay.
`It's better. Let's go for a little bit and, if it's a
`problem, I think we'll have you call in.
` Do you have the call-in number available if we need
` to do that? And can our technical IT people make sure we
` have that ability, if needed?
` THE TECHNICIAN: Yes. So Mr. Rader, the call-in
`number is in the Webex, you'll just simply change your audio
`options to switch audio, and then that will give you another
`menu to actually call in, and it will give you a number to
`dial in with the access code and ID.
` MR. RADER: Okay.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Well, let's try to do it like this.
`I'm able to hear him, and I have bad hearing, so it should be
`okay.
` MR. RADER: I'll try to speak up.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Yeah, that would help.
` And patent owner, can we have an entry of appearance
` for patent owner.
` MR. KNEDEISEN: This is Mark Knedeisen for K&L Gates
`for patent owner.
` MR. SPEED: Your Honor, I'm sorry. This is Nathan
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`Speed, also from Wolf Greenfield & Sacks. I think Mr. Rader
`was going to introduce me, but the audio issue took me off of
`his mind.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: So Mr. Speed, are you petitioner
`or --
` MR. SPEED: Petitioner.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Very good. Thank you.
` Are you going to take part in any of the argument?
` MR. SPEED: I am, Your Honor.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay, great. Looking forward to
`hearing from all of you.
` Okay. With that, petitioner, do you want to reserve
` some time for rebuttal?
` MR. RADER: Yes, Your Honor. We'd like to reserve
`15 minutes.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Very good. With that, you may
`proceed.
` And we all have the demonstratives and access to any
`pleadings that you filed.
` Go ahead.
` MR. RADER: Very good. Thank you, Your Honor.
` And so just as a housekeeping matter, we plan to
`proceed in our argument in the order in which the Institution
`Decision addressed the grounds.
` So I will start with Nakagawa and Rezvani, and then
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`Mr. Speed will pick up at the end with priority,
`priority-based ground.
` I promised him 15 minutes for that so I will
` endeavor to keep my portion to 30 minutes.
` Your Honor, I'm going to start with Nakagawa, as I
` just said, and as a reminder, so just to set the stage,
` there is no dispute that all of the -- that the combinations
` of Nakagawa and Wilson, and Nakagawa with Rosener,
` et cetera, meet all of the limitations of the claims
` challenged in Ground 3, and that is all the claims, except
`for 11 and 12. There's no dispute about that.
` The only dispute for the Nakagawa ground is whether
`a person of ordinary skill in the art, or a POSA, had
`sufficient reason to make these combinations, and in
`particular, with Wilson and Rosener.
` So I have three goals for my 15 minutes or so on
`Nakagawa.
` First, I want to remind Your Honors about the strong
`reasons for combining Nakagawa with those two references,
`which the patent owner does not even dispute.
` Second, I would like to respond to the patent
`owner's arguments against the combination, which we submit
`are based on treating a POSA really as an automaton who
`would be incapable, for example, of selecting an appropriate
`battery.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
` And lastly, I would like to respond to the new
`argument in the surreply that patent owner filed, their lead
`argument on the first four pages, that suggested we had
`somehow changed our approach to the combinations in our
`reply, which is not correct.
` So just to set the stage for how compelling these
`combinations are. If we take a quick look on Slide 5, we've
`reproduced Claim 1, take a quick look at the automatic
`transition limitation that we're talking about. It's
`highlighted in blue here.
` There was never any question that the yellow
`portions of Claim 1 are known in the prior art, but, you
`know, wireless headset or headphone assembly with all these
`standard components. The claims were allowed by the
`examiner because of this automatic transition limitation.
` Now, you're going to hear more later from Mr. Speed
`about the scope of that limitation because it relates to our
`priority-based ground, but for purposes of Nakagawa, the
`important thing is that it covers what we call an audio
`source priority transition, that is, you know, picking up an
`audio feed off of one Bluetooth connection from a phone, for
`example, when you get a call, and dropping the audio from,
`let's say, you know, some music that you're listening to on
`another device. That's what we would call audio source
`priority transition, and this claim is written broadly
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`enough to cover that.
` And that's exactly what Nakagawa is all about. So I
`said there was no dispute about any of the limitations, but
`I just wanted to mention this one because it's the key one.
` There's no dispute that Nakagawa hits the
`bull's-eye, so to speak, with respect to the purported point
`of novelty of all of these claims, the automatic transition.
` We went a little bit more into Nakagawa on Slide 10.
`What we've done is excerpted some of the key portions.
` On the right-hand side it's some of the text of
`Nakagawa that talks about the automatic transition from one
`sound source to another, and that's on the right-hand side.
` Then on the left-hand side we have Figures 1 and 3.
`Figure 1 shows the headset 11 with the two earphones which
`can communicate over numerous Bluetooth lengths with
`different sounds for its devices, such as a mobile phone or
`music player, et cetera.
` And then Figure 3 shows a block diagram of some of
`the guts of Nakagawa, including blocks 35 and 36 that handle
`this automatic transition between networks and sound sources
`under the control of the processor 32, which is called the
`system control unit.
` The only thing that's not here in Nakagawa from
`Claim 1, the only thing, is a rechargeable battery.
` Now, of course, Nakagawa had a battery, it must have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`because it's a wireless device and had to be powered
`somehow, but it doesn't explicitly mention it.
` Both of the secondary references, Wilson and
`Rosener, satisfy that battery limitation. They expressly
`talk about the battery.
` And I'll talk about the combinations in one second,
`but while we're looking at Slide 10, I just wanted to point
`one thing out for Your Honors.
` This is drawn schematically. So Nakagawa doesn't
`show you here and it doesn't say anywhere what those
`earphones look like. It doesn't tell you if they're
`earbuds, doesn't tell you if they're what they call
`circumoral where they go around your ear, it tells you
`nothing about what they look like, it focuses on this
`automatic transitioning functionality.
` So in that sense, Nakagawa itself is basically
`crying out for a combination. It's saying, hey, I'm a
`headset that has this great automatic transitioning
`functionality, I just need a physical form in which, you
`know, to be implemented. That's Nakagawa.
` And so if you turn now one more slide to Slide 11,
`you'll see the two physical forms. Sometimes we refer to
`them, and Dr. Casali, our expert, calls them form factors,
`meaning the appearance. Right?
` So Wilson, for example, has the two earphones with
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`the headband. The headband hits Claim 6 of the '155 patent.
` It has the docking station for charging its
`rechargeable battery. That hits Claim 10 of the '155
`patent.
` And Rosener is a wireless, what they call true
`wireless earbud embodiment, and those earbuds hit, for
`example, Claim 4 of the '155 patent.
` So again, as I said before, there's no dispute that
`these combinations disclose every limitation of all the
`challenged claims, it's just a question of whether it would
`have been obvious to make these combinations, and the
`combinations are incredibly straightforward.
` If you turn to Slide 12, we just show you
`graphically that Wilson combination where you basically take
`Nakagawa and you implement it in the physical form of the
`Wilson headset, and that's what we explain in the petition,
`and it would include, of course, those blocks 35 and 36 that
`do the automatic transitioning, and those are among the
`components listed in paragraph 54 of Nakagawa that we're
`citing there in the petition on the bottom left-hand side of
`the page.
` And the Institution Decision found that, yes, this
`is very simple. It's a one-for-one substitution, the
`Wilson's headset for that of Nakagawa. Very simple
`substitution.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
` So the question is, okay, what reasons did you
`identify and was there any response to this combination?
` So if you turn to Slide 16, we summarize them here
`for you with, of course, citations to the petition and the
`expert declaration.
` And what's important is that, for the most part, the
`patent owner does not even contest that these are legitimate
`and correct reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would make the combination.
` For example, with regard to Wilson, I'll start with
`number 2. Wilson discloses not just the battery but
`advantageously a docking station, which was attractive
`because it provided a convenient way of recharging the
`battery. They don't respond to that at all. There's no
`dispute that that's something that would have motivated a
`person of skill in the art to use Wilson as the physical
`form for the Nakagawa headset.
` With regard to Rosener, the very first one is the
`most obvious one. Rosener is earbuds. And as Dr. Casali
`and Dr. Williams explained, there are lots of reasons why
`some people like earbuds. They're small, they fit in your
`pocket, there's no wires, and et cetera.
` They don't respond -- the patent owner doesn't
`respond to that at all. There's no dispute that Rosener's
`earbud design was desirable and a reason why you would
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`implement Nakagawa's functionality in an earbud-type device.
` Other reasons to combine were disputed but not
`genuinely so.
` You know, for example, Wilson expressly describes
`that it's a stereo headset. Nakagawa does not. And so
`reason number 1 for Nakagawa-Wilson is, hey, that's a
`good idea. Let's implement, among other things, in a stereo
`design, which Wilson provides.
` In the patent owner response, the patent owner
`claimed that Nakagawa, based on its expert Mr. McAlexander,
`that Nakagawa was stereo because it has two earphones rather
`than one.
` It's not correct. Nakagawa never says anything
`about stereo. And as Dr. Casali, who is an expert with
`almost 40 years of experience in the audio and headphone
`space has explained, two earphones can be either diotic or
`diochotic. The diotic set of earphones is one that gets the
`same signal to both ears, and a diochotic one, which
`basically means stereo, is one that gets two different
`signals to two different ears. Nakagawa doesn't say which
`one it is.
` Mr. McAlexander, the patent owner's expert, offered
`a conclusory opinion that Nakagawa has stereo, but he
`admitted at deposition, he does not even know the words
`diotic and diochotic. He's not a headphone expert.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
` They dropped that argument in their surreply.
` So in summary, the patent owner did not genuinely
`contest the reasons for these combinations. Instead, the
`patent owner focused its patent owner response on the idea
`that it would be challenging for a person of ordinary skill
`in the art to select the right battery for the combined
`headphone that includes the switching functionality of
`Nakagawa.
` Well, this argument treats a POSA as an automaton.
`KSR says you can't do that. A POSA is an artisan of
`ordinary creativity who clearly knew how to choose an
`appropriate battery based on all the prior art. And
`effectively, the patent owner's expert admitted this when
`questioned about the fact that the '155 patent itself says
`nothing and provides no guidance about how you select a
`battery when you implement headphone with all of these
`claimed elements.
` And if you look, this is an issue that drew the
`Board's attention at the Institution phase.
` If you look at Slide 20, we've reproduced from the
`Institution Decision, Your Honors noted that the '155 patent
`lacks any specificity as to the component, parallels, or
`battery type.
` In essence, this is something that is a routine
`implementation detail that persons of skill in the art would
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`select a battery that sufficiently powers the component.
`Might have a little more -- you know, more lifetime, a
`little less lifetime, there are tradeoffs, but that's a
`routine implementation detail.
` And despite the ID specifically calling out this
`issue of the fact that the '155 patent provides no guidance,
`the patent owner elected, itself and its expert, not to
`address this issue at all. So the Board teed it up in the
`ID, patent owner had no response.
` In fact, they essentially concede that at the top of
`page 6 of the surreply, that they did not have
`Mr. McAlexander address the issue.
` So that takes care of that one.
` Now, the issues were similar for Rosener. There's
`the battery issue, and then the patent owner also raises the
`issue of sizing, because earbuds are small.
` They focused on the challenge that one of skill in
`the art would face sizing the component, but again, the
`patent owner's expert admitted that the '155 patent provides
`no such details.
` So the bottom line is that these battery selection
`and sizing arguments, to truly be responsive to the reasons
`to combine these references -- and again, those reasons are
`undisputed, they do not challenge stereo, docking station,
`earbuds as desirable, they don't challenging any of those
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`things -- to truly be responsive, their arguments about
`battery, power, and sizing components would have to convince
`the Board that a POSA would have lacked a reasonable
`expectation of success in the combination, and they've
`offered zero evidence of it. They've offered nothing to
`overcome the Institution Decision itself.
` So the last thing I'd like to address, unless there
`are any questions on those, is the new argument, the lead
`argument in the surreply from pages 1 through 4 that somehow
`we changed or reversed the combination in the reply relative
`to what was in the petition. They spent the first four
`pages of the surreply on this.
` As best I can obtain what they're saying -- what
`they're suggesting is that, in the reply, we argued that you
`start with Wilson and Rosener, and then you would add
`Nakagawa's functionality to them as a secondary reference
`rather than starting with Nakagawa and then implementing it
`in one of those physical designs, Wilson or Rosener. That
`seems to be what they're saying.
` If we could -- if you turn to Slide 27, we've kind
`of summarized -- we pulled out the sentence from their
`surreply and provide a little summary here of some of the
`arguments from our reply.
` If you start from the bottom with respect to
`Rosener, I mean, here's what we said in our reply on the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`bottom right. "As the petition explained, POSAs would have
`recognized the benefits of Rosener's completely wireless
`earbuds" -- there's that earbud motivation -- "providing
`reason to combine Nakagawa with Rosener."
` I mean, that's exactly what we said in the petition.
` With regard to Wilson, the one above that, I'm not
`sure what it is that caused the patent owner to read it the
`way they did. It says, "The petitioner's first reason for
`Nakagawa-Wilson was implementing Nakagawa's functionality in
`a stereo headphone like Wilson's," but, to me, that's
`exactly what we said in the petition.
` But that's page 4 of our reply. And if you look
`just a couple sentences down from that, about halfway down
`the page on page 4 of their reply, we're addressing their
`argument about the stereo issue, that I mentioned before,
`and we said, "Given Nakagawa's silence," we're talking about
`fact that Nakagawa was silent about whether it's stereo or
`not, "given Nakagawa's silence, POSAs had reason to use
`Wilson's stereo design because an intended application for
`Nakagawa's headphone assembly is music playback for which
`stereo sound was desired."
` So exactly the same thing we said in the petition.
` So this one was a hedge factor. We really were not
`able to make sense of it, but because it's their lead
`argument in their surreply, I did not want to leave it
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`hanging, I wanted to address it.
` That's all I have on Nakagawa, so unless there are
`questions, I'm going to grab my Rezvani materials and
`proceed on the Rezvani (indiscernible).
` Okay. So with regard to Rezvani, so this one is a
`little different. But here, there's no dispute about the
`combinations. So the patent owner does not dispute that the
`combinations are proper. Here, the only -- and there's no
`dispute about any independent claims, either -- any
`dependent claims, either.
` Here, the only disputes are, one, whether the
`seamless handoff that's described in Rezvani is performed by
`the headset of Rezvani or, as the patent owner suggests, by
`the handset, and two, when Rezvani describes a seamless
`handoff, is that an automatic transition consistent with the
`claim or not? That's it.
` So again, I have three goals for my time here.
` One, I'll quickly walk through the undisputed
`disclosures in Rezvani that show the headset does perform
`the seamless handoff independent of whether the famous
`paragraph 41 does or does not contain a typographical error.
` There are independent disclosures that don't depend
` on that over which there's no dispute that it discloses the
` headset performing them.
` And then, of course, I will respond to the patent
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
` owner's arguments about paragraph 41, the typographical
` error.
` And finally, I will respond to the suggestion that a
` seamless handoff, which is the phrase that Rezvani uses --
` and, by the way, essentially identical phrase is used in the
` '155 patent -- but the suggestion that that phrase does not
` qualify as an automatic transition, those are my three
` goals.
` So if you turn to Slide 31 --
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Mr. Rader, before you get rolling
`there --
` MR. RADER: Yeah.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: -- why didn't you all address this
`handset-headset issue in the petition?
` MR. RADER: We didn't --
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Was this an oversight, or what's
`going on there?
` MR. RADER: So we didn't notice it. And as the
`drafter of the petition, you know, I'll just tell you, we did
`not notice it.
` We, ourselves, like Dr. Williams, simply interpreted
`that or read that or saw that -- maybe it's dyslexia, I don't
`know, it's a very small change -- we saw it as the headset.
` Given the full context of Rezvani, which I intend to
`talk about, we didn't notice it.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
` In fact, Your Honor, if you look at page 36 of the
`petition, we even bolded and italicized the word handset for
`the -- I guess, toward of top of page 36.
` Obviously, if I had noticed it, I would have had the
`expert address it and would have explained it in the
`petition. But mea culpa, we simply didn't notice it at the
`time.
` We think it's -- there's a reason for that, which is
`that it's so obvious that it's talking about the headset and
`that's a typo.
` But that's the answer to your question, we didn't
`notice it.
` So Slide 31 provides a quick overview of Rezvani.
` It's too small to see, but the title of Rezvani is "High
` fidelity multimedia wireless headset". So the title is
`headset.
` The field of the invention is wireless headsets.
` The abstract starts, the very first sentence, "The
`abstract of the invention provides a multi-antenna wireless
`multimedia headset," with, among other things, the seamless
`handoff functionality that we're talking about. All that's
`about the headset.
` Figure 8, which depicts the seamless handoff, shows
`the headset. There's no handset depicted in Figure 8.
` And the word headset is used almost 100 times in the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`reference. Handset appears a small number of times,
`typically in connection with the fact that it can be
`connected to the wireless connections to the headset, but
`it's really all about the headset.
` If you advance to Slide 37.
` So in the petition, we pointed to the abstract and
`explained that that was one of the pieces of evidence that
`shows that Rezvani discloses the seamless handoff limitation
`by a headset.
` Your Honors, in the Institution Decision, cited the
`abstract on page 36 for the conclusion that Rezvani does
`disclose a headset with this functionality.
` The patent owner ignored it. They wanted to focus
`on paragraph 41, which we say contains a typographical
`error. They ignore the disclosure of the abstract.
` So naturally, in our reply, we pointed this out and
`said, look, the ID specifically relied on the abstract for
`that conclusion, and it's very clear from the abstract that
`it's the headset that has this functionality, and they still
`didn't respond.
` So the table was basically set as of the ID, and the
`patent owner has no response to this disclosure. So
`independent of whether paragraph 41 does or does not contain
`a typographical error, the disclosure is right there in the
`abstract.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
` If you turn to the next slide, 38, the same was true
`of the claims. So Rezvani -- all of the claims are directed
`to a headset. Either a headset as an apparatus or there's
`method claims that are directed to a method of designing a
`headset, nothing about a handset in the claims of Rezvani.
` Again, we cited in the petition, Claim 36, which
`specifically calls out that it's the headset that includes
`the means for seamless handoff.
` The Institution Decision cited these claims, among
`other evidence, such as Figure 8, as evidence that we had
`for preliminary purposes at the ID stage, met our burden of
`providing evidence that rises to the level of a reasonable
`likelihood that Rezvani's headset does this.
` And the patent owner ignored it again. Nothing in
`the patent owner response, nothing in the expert
`declaration.
` We pointed this out in the reply, and nothing in the
`surreply.
` So the stage we're at now is that there is no
`dispute in this proceeding that the abstract in Claims 32
`and 36 fully support and provide a disclosure of the headset
`performing this seamless handoff, whether you agree with us
`or not about the typo in paragraph 41.
` Given these disclosures, you really don't even need
`to reach the question of whether paragraph 41 discloses the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`headset or the handset doing this, but I'm going to address
`paragraph 41 anyway, so you won't be surprised at all.
` If you turn to Slide 41, we reproduced paragraphs 40
`and 41 from the specification of Rezvani here on Slide 41.
` For reference, since it talks about Figure 8, we've
`also reproduced Figure 8 which shows that it's the headset
`that's performing the seamless handoff.
` And what Dr. Williams explained in his reply
`declaration is, look, among other things, you know, the
`title, all the other mentions of headset, et cetera, if you
`look at the structure of these two paragraphs, you see the
`first sentence of paragraph 40 says, "The headset may
`advantageously support simultaneous operation on the
`different wireless interfaces."
` So, you know, if you look at Figure 8, you see it
`can communicate with a wi-fi -- by wi-fi or can communicate
`by cellular. Okay? So it's the headset that may support
`simultaneous operation.
` And then, if you go down to the bottom highlighted
`portion in paragraph 41, it says, "In addition to
`simultaneous operation, the handset can support seamless
`handoff."
` So in addition to simultaneous operation. Well,
`what did it just say about simultaneous operation? It said
`it's the headset that has the simultaneous operation.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
` So based on that, among other things, Dr. Williams
`concluded, and I conclude, both concludes that there's a
`typographical error in the paragraph, and it should say,
`"The headset that supports the seamless handoff."
` Okay. Now, if you turn to Slide 42, I just want to
`talk for a moment about Dr. Williams' rebuttal testimony on
`this.
` So the patent owner argues that you should disregard
`Dr. Williams' rebuttal testimony on this suggesting that,
`you know, he knew about the typographical error before he
`filed his original declaration.
` I think they're seriously overreading his deposition
`testimony. There was one question and answer and no
`follow-up in which he was asked about this and he said,
`"Yes, clearly, in paragraph 136, I interpreted the words of
`Rezvani as meaning the headset is the thing that switches,
`and that's why I wrote the paragraph the way I did."
` He interpreted the words that way, which, frankly,
`Your Honor, to go back to your question, Judge Anderson, I
`did, too. I think it's a little (indiscernible) to suggest
`he consciously concluded -- saw that it was handset and
`concluded it was a typo.
` I also interpreted it as headset. I never even
`noticed that it said handset.
` So there's no genuine suggestion here that he
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`