Trials@uspto.gov
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
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
