Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 41
`Date: May 31, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. McKONE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 41
`Date: May 31, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. McKONE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Bose Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`review of claims 1–14 of US Patent No. 10,368,155 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’155
`patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Koss Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon our authorization,
`Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply relating to discretionary denial based on
`the factors set forth in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 12
`(PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). Paper 12 (“Prelim. Reply”). Patent
`Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-Reply in response. Paper 13 (“Prelim. Sur-
`Reply”). We instituted inter partes review on June 3, 2021. Paper 16 (“Inst.
`Dec.”). Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 22, “PO Resp.”), Petitioner
`filed a Reply (Paper 25, “Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply
`(Paper 33, “Sur-Reply). A hearing was held on March 8, 2022, and a
`transcript has been made of record. Paper 40 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Upon considering the
`record, for the reasons discussed below, we find claims 1–14 unpatentable.
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner states it is the real party in interest. Pet. xvi. Patent Owner
`asserts it is the real party in interest. Paper 4, 2.
`B. Related Matters
`Both parties list lawsuits, prior filed United States applications and
`issued patents, and pending inter partes reviews as related matters. Pet. xvi;
`Paper 11, 2–3.
`
`1. Lawsuits
`Petitioner advises us that it is a defendant in a case filed by Patent
`Owner asserting the ’155 patent in the Western District of Texas captioned
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`Koss Corporation v. Bose Corporation, Case No. 6:20-cv-00661 (W.D.
`Tex.) (“District Court” or “District Court Lawsuit”). Pet. xvii; see also
`Paper 11, 2. The parties identify three other cases in the Western District
`involving the ’155 patent: Koss Corporation v. PEAG LLC d/b/a JLab
`Audio, Case No. 6:20-cv-00662 (W.D. Tex.); Koss Corporation v.
`Plantronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00663 (W.D. Tex.); and Koss
`Corporation v. Skullcandy, Inc., Case No, 6:20-cv-00664 (W.D. Tex.).
`Pet. xvii; Paper 11, 2. Patent Owner also identifies two other lawsuits, Bose
`Corporation v. Koss Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-12193 (D. Mass.) and
`Koss Corporation v. Skullcandy, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00203 (D. Utah).
`Paper 11, 2.
`
`2. United States Applications and Issued Patents
`Petitioner lists applications and corresponding issued patents to which
`the ’155 patent is a continuation. Pet. xvi; see also Ex. 1001, code (63)
`(“Related US Application Data” (“Related Applications”)).
`Patent Owner identifies the following applications listed as Related
`Applications to which the ’155 patent claims priority: PCT application No.
`PCT/US2009/039754, filed April 7, 2009 (the “PCT Application”) and
`provisional application Serial No. 61/123,265 filed April 8, 2008 (the
`“Provisional Application”). Paper 11, 2. Patent Owner identifies the
`following pending United States patent applications that claim priority to the
`PCT Application and the Provisional Application: US 17/070,295, filed
`October 14, 2020; US 17/070,363, filed October 14, 2020; and US
`17/178,946, filed February 18, 2021. Id. at 3.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`3. Inter Partes Review Proceedings
`Patent Owner lists the following inter partes review proceedings1
`challenging patents that claim priority to the PCT Application and the
`Provisional Application:
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corporation, IPR2021-00305, filed December 15,
`2020, challenging US Patent 10,506,325 B1);
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corporation, IPR2021-00381, filed January 4,
`2021, challenging US Patent 10,491,982 B1;
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corporation, IPR2021-00546, filed February 22,
`2021, challenging US Patent 10,206,025 B2;
` Apple Inc. v. Koss Corporation, IPR2021-00592, filed March 2,
`2021, challenging US Patent 10,469,934 B2;
`Bose Corporation v. Koss Corporation, IPR2021-00612, filed March
`3, 2021, challenging US Patent 10,206,025 B2;
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corporation, IPR2021-00626, filed March 17,
`2021, challenging US Patent 10,206,025 B2;
`Bose Corporation v. Koss Corporation, IPR2021-00680, filed March
`17, 2021, challenging US Patent 10,469,934 B2;
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corporation, IPR2021-00679, filed March 22,
`2021, challenging US Patent 10,506,325 B1;
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corporation, IPR2021-00686, filed March 22,
`2021, challenging US Patent 10,491,982 B1; and
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corporation, IPR2021-00693, filed March 23,
`2021, challenging US Patent 10,469,934 B2. Paper 11, 3.
`
`
`1 Apple Inc. v. Koss Corporation, IPR2021-00255, filed November 25, 2020,
`and Apple Inc. v. Koss Corporation, IPR2021-00600, filed March 7, 2021,
`both challenging US Patent 10,298,451 B1 are also pending.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`Patent Owner further advises the following inter partes review
`proceedings involve a patent related to the ’155 patent:
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2022-00053, filed Oct. 15, 2021,
`challenging US Patent 10,206,025 B2; and
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2022-00188, filed Nov. 15, 2021,
`challenging US Patent 10,469,934. Paper 26, 2.
`C. The ’155 Patent
`The application for the ’155 patent’s earliest claimed priority dates are
`to the PCT Application filed April 7, 2009, and the Provisional Application
`filed April 8, 2008. Ex. 1001, codes (63), (60); see Pet. xvi, 9
`(acknowledging the PCT Application as a “priority application[]”); Prelim.
`Resp. 3 n.3 (“the ’155 Patent claims priority to the PCT and Provisional
`Applications”).
`
`1. Background Technology
`The ’155 patent explains that wired headphones were large and
`“cumbersome.” Ex. 1001, 1:43–51. The ’155 patent further explains
`“[r]ecently, cordless headphones that connect wirelessly via IEEE 802.11”
`such as via Bluetooth connection, to a laptop or personal computer “have
`been proposed, but such headphones are also quite large and not in-ear type
`phones.” Id. at 1:58–62; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 43 (describing Bluetooth as “an
`ad hoc wireless network”).
`2. The ’155 Patent’s Wireless Earphones
`The ’155 patent describes and claims a wireless earphone with “a
`transceiver circuit for receiving streaming audio from a data source . . . over
`an ad hoc wireless network. When the data source and the earphone are out
`of range via the ad hoc wireless network, they may transition automatically
`to a common infrastructure wireless network.” Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:5. The
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`patent defines “ad hoc wireless network” as “a network where two . . .
`wireless-capable devices, such as the earphone and a data source,
`communicate directly and wirelessly, without using an access point.” Id. at
`3:3–6, 4:57–60.
`Figure 2A of the ’155 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2A illustrates one of the communication modes for the wireless
`earphone.
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:28–30. Figure 2A illustrates a data source 20 in communication
`with earphone 10 over ad hoc wireless network 24. Id. at 4:26-28. The data
`source may be a “digital audio player (DAP).” Id. at 4:33–34. The DAP
`transmits audio wirelessly to earphone(s) via an ad hoc network if the DAP
`and earphone(s) are “in range” of that network. Id. at 4:56–57. “When the
`earphone 10 and data source 20 are out of range for the ad hoc wireless
`network 24, that is, when the received signals degrade below the threshold
`minimum signal strength level, both the earphone 10 and the data source 20
`may transition automatically to communicate over an infrastructure wireless
`network (such as a wireless LAN (WLAN)) 30 that is in the range of both
`the earphone and data source.” Id. at 5:9–17, see also Fig. 2B (ad hoc
`network replaced by “NETWORK 33”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1–14 of the ’155 patent are challenged. Pet. 4. Claims 2–13
`depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. All claims are directed to a
`“wireless headphone assembly.” Claim 1 is reproduced below as
`illustrative.
`[1.a]2 A wireless headphone assembly comprising:
`
`[1.b] first and second earphones, wherein each of the first and
`second earphones comprises an acoustic transducer;
`
`[1.c] an antenna for receiving wireless signals;
`
`[1.d] a wireless communication circuit connected to the antenna,
`wherein the wireless communication circuit is for receiving and
`transmitting wireless signals to and from the wireless headphone
`assembly;
`
`in communication with
`[1.e] a processor
`communication circuit; and
`
`[1.f] a rechargeable battery for powering the wireless headphone
`assembly,
`
`[1.g] wherein the headphone assembly is configured, with the
`processor, to transition automatically from playing digital audio
`content received wirelessly by the headphone assembly via a first
`wireless network to playing digital audio content received
`wirelessly by the headphone assembly via a second wireless
`network.
`
`
`the wireless
`
`
`2 For purposes of this Decision, we follow Petitioner’s format as shown in
`the Summary of the Challenged Claims, where each claim recitation is
`identified by claim number followed by a letter for each recitation of the
`claim. Pet. 7. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner argues certain
`limitations without reference to the format. See, e.g., PO Resp. 9
`(“processor, to transition automatically”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`Ex. 1001, 18:2–19; Pet. 7.
`
`E. Evidence of Record
`This proceeding relies on the following prior art references and
`expert testimony:
`Pelland3 (Ex. 1013), WO 2009/126614 A1, published Oct. 15, 2009;
`Rezvani (Ex. 1016), US 2007/0165875 A1, published July 19, 2007;
`Skulley (Ex. 1017), US 6,856,690 B1, issued Feb. 15, 2005;
`Feder (Ex. 1018), US 2004/0142693 A1, published July 22, 2004;
`Hind (Ex. 1019), US 7,069,452 B1, issued June 27, 2006;
`Rosener (Ex. 1020), US 2008/0076489 A1, published Mar. 27, 2008;
`Wilson (Ex. 1021), US 7,457,649 B1, issued Nov. 25, 2008; and
`Nakagawa (Ex. 1022), US 2003/0223604 A1, published Dec. 4, 2003.
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Tim A. Williams, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 1003, “Williams Declaration”), Reply Declaration of Tim A. Williams,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1104, “Williams Reply Declaration”) and the Declaration of John
`G. Casali, Ph.D., CPE (Ex. 1005, “Casali Declaration”).
`Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`(Ex. 2023, “McAlexander Declaration”).
`F. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–14 would have been unpatentable on
`the following grounds (Pet. 4, 11–80):
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`1–14
`102
`1–4, 6–8, 14
`103
`11–12
`103
`13
`103
`
`3 Pelland is the published version of the “PCT Application” listed above in
`Section II.B.2.
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Pelland
`Rezvani, Skulley
`Rezvani, Skulley, Feder
`Rezvani, Skulley, Hind
`
`8
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103
`103
`103
`103
`103
`103
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Rezvani, Skulley Rosener
`Rezvani, Skulley, Wilson
`Nakagawa, Wilson
`Nakagawa, Rosener
`Nakagawa, Wilson, Hind
`Nakagawa, Rosener, Hind
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`Claims Challenged
`5, 9
`10
`1–3, 6–8, 10, 14
`1, 4–5, 9
`13
`13
`
`
`III. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner relies on Drs. Williams and Casali, and alleges that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art “would principally have had a background in
`wireless networks, including at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`engineering or a related field and experience with ad hoc and infrastructure
`wireless networks” and “would have worked on a team including a member
`with headphone design experience.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–34;
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 41–43).
`Based on the McAlexander Declaration, Patent Owner proposes that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art “would be someone working in the
`electrical engineering field and specializing in or knowledgeable of speaker
`components for small wireless devices,” would have a “bachelor’s degree in
`electrical engineering and at least two or more years of work experience in
`the industry,” and would have practical experience with circuit design,
`speaker components, and wireless communication. PO Resp. 4 (citing
`Ex. 2023 ¶ 15).
`Patent Owner states that its proposal is “not far removed” from
`Petitioner’s. Neither party argues the level of ordinary skill as part of their
`arguments on the merits. We instituted trial on Petitioner’s proposed level
`of ordinary skill. We are not presented with any reason to change that
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`determination and, given Patent Owner’s acquiescence, we maintain the
`level of skill proposed by Petitioner.
`B.
`Claim Construction
`The Petition was accorded a filing date of December 7, 2020.
`Paper 3. For petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018, a claim shall be
`construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to
`construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including
`construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and
`the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 (2019).
`Thus, we apply the claim construction standard as set forth in Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`Petitioner, citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, asserts construction is
`unnecessary and does not propose any term for construction. Pet. 11. In the
`Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that no disputed term
`required construction to resolve this dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms
`need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy.”). Inst. Dec. 20–21.
`Limitation 1.g recites, in pertinent part, “the headphone assembly is
`configured with the processor, to transition automatically from . . . a first
`wireless network to . . . a second wireless network.” Patent Owner disputes
`that Rezvani’s “seamless handoff” falls within the meaning of “transition
`automatically.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 41)). Patent
`Owner argues there is no disclosure in Rezvani of any logic or mechanism
`for the “handset” described in Rezvani’s paragraph 41 to perform the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`seamless handoff “automatically.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶ 61); see also
`Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 41, 50 (both referencing “handset” and not “headphone”).
`We limit the current discussion to whether a “seamless handoff” falls
`within the meaning of “transition automatically.” The “handset” versus
`“headphone” issue is addressed in connection with patentability. See
`Section III.G below.
`Relying on the McAlexander Declaration (Ex. 2023), Patent Owner
`asserts that “‘automatically’ means by itself, without external intervention,
`such as from a human operator or another device.” PO Resp. 15 (citing
`Ex. 2023 ¶ 60). Patent Owner contends that “automatic” and “seamless” are
`not synonyms. Sur-Reply 15. Petitioner cites the ’155 patent where
`“‘automatically’ means ‘without user intervention.’” Pet. 36 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 2:65–66, 3:1–3, 5:21–22). Patent Owner agrees that “automatic”
`as used in limitation 1.g means “without external intervention.” PO Resp.
`15 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶ 60; Ex. 2025,4 4; Ex. 20265, 27).
`Patent Owner asserts “[s]eamless,” on the other hand, means “without
`interruption.” Sur-Reply 15–16 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶ 52 (“without a gap”);
`Ex. 2025, 5 (“without seams”); Ex. 2026, 27–28). Patent Owner argues
`“[s]omething can be seamless without being automatic.” Id. at 16 (citing
`Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 52–53). Petitioner responds by arguing the prior art “uniformly
`confirms a ‘seamless handoff is where . . . the user does not have to do
`anything.” Reply 20 (citing Ex. 10316 ¶¶ 278–279; Ex. 1003 ¶ 139;
`
`4 THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY, 143 automatic 1.a: “Acting or
`operating in a manner essentially independent of external influence or
`control; self-moving;” 1106 seamless: “without seams,” Second College
`Edition).
`5 Deposition of Tim A. Williams, Ph.D. (Ex. 2026, “Williams Deposition”).
`6 Tagg, US 2005/0286466 A1, published Dec. 29, 2005 (Ex. 1031).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`Ex. 11027 ¶ 6 (“seamless” handoff is one in which a user “do[es] not have to
`take any specific action to effectuate . . . the handover”); Ex. 11038 ¶ 47
`(“‘seamless’ handoff ‘occurs without user input’”); Ex. 1104
`¶ 31).
`
`We are not persuaded that the extrinsic evidence Patent Owner relies
`on, in the form of dictionary definitions and conclusory expert testimony,
`supports any difference between “seamless handoff” and “transition
`automatically.” Extrinsic evidence is, in general, less reliable than intrinsic
`evidence in determining how to interpret the claim. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`1318 (listing reasons extrinsic evidence lacks the reliability of the patent and
`its prosecution history).
`Neither are we persuaded that Rezvani’s paragraphs 41 and 50
`description of a “handset” in conjunction with the seamless handoff is
`“strong evidence” that the described “seamless handoff does not occur
`automatically.” PO Resp. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 41). As detailed in
`Section III.G below, we find that the use of “handset” in Rezvani was a
`mistake in printing or drafting.
`Mistake or not, Rezvani’s description of “handset” is the only fact
`relied on in the McAlexander Declaration supporting his conclusion that
`“seamless handoff” is outside the meaning of “automatically transition.” See
`Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 60–61. Mr. McAlexander testifies “there is no disclosure in
`Rezvani of any logic or mechanism for the handset to perform the seamless
`handoff ‘automatically.’” Id. ¶ 60. However, Mr. McAlexander does not
`
`
`7 Krishnamurthi, US 2004/0246990 A1, published Dec. 9, 2004 (Ex. 1102).
`8 Chiueh, US 2005/053034 A1, published Mar. 10, 2005 (Ex. 1103).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`say anything about Rezvani’s disclosures of a “headset.” We give very little
`weight to the conclusory McAlexander Declaration.
`Both parties agree, and the ’155 patent all but defines, that
`“automatic” means “without user intervention.” Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1001,
`2:65–66, 3:1–3, 5:21–22; PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶ 60 (“without
`external intervention”)). We are not persuaded that a “seamless handoff” is
`any different from “transition automatically.” We therefore maintain our
`preliminary determination that the term does not require express
`construction, adding that a “seamless handoff” is encompassed within the
`meaning of “transition automatically.”
`C. Legal Standard for Obviousness
`A patent claim is invalid as obvious if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a
`whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`The ultimate determination of obviousness is a question of law,
`but
`that determination
`is based on underlying factual
`findings. . . . The underlying factual findings include (1) “the
`scope and content of the prior art,” (2) “differences between the
`prior art and the claims at issue,” (3) “the level of ordinary skill
`in the pertinent art,” and (4) the presence of secondary
`considerations of nonobviousness such “as commercial success,
`long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others,” and unexpected
`results.
`
`In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing inter alia
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).9
`
`
`9 The parties do not present argument or evidence of secondary
`considerations of nonobviousness.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot
`employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate
`specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d
`1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore, in assessing the prior art, the
`Board must consider whether a person of ordinary skill would have been
`motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention.
`NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1381.
`As the Federal Circuit found, in quoting from the Supreme Court’s
`decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–419 (2007),
`“because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon
`building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries
`almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense,
`is already known,” “it can be important to identify a reason that
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new
`invention does.”
`
`Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed.
`Cir. 2017).
`D. Obviousness of Claims 1–3, 6–8, 10, and 14 over Nakagawa and Wilson
`Petitioner alleges claims 1–3, 6–8, 10, and 14 would have been
`obvious over Nakagawa and Wilson. Pet. 4, 56–80. Petitioner also relies on
`the Williams and Casali Declarations. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 225–296; Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 47–100, 103, 123–129.
`1. Nakagawa (Ex. 1022)
`Nakagawa includes a wireless audio output apparatus 11, illustrated in
`Figure 1, which is reproduced below.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 is a diagram showing sound source devices connected by radio
`to an audio output apparatus, for example a wireless headset.
`
`Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 15, 25. As shown in Figure 1, the audio output apparatus 11
`receives audio data via a radio signal and generates sound that is output via a
`speaker or headphone 11. Id. ¶¶ 24–25. Sound source devices “are wireless
`audio transmitters that can transmit audio representing speech, music and the
`like, in the form of radio signals,” which signals can be in accord with the
`BluetoothTM standard. Id. ¶¶ 26–27. Still referring to Figure 1, Nakagawa
`identifies three sound source devices: a portable audio player like a CD
`(Compact Disc) 12; a mobile phone 13; and an audio guidance device 14.
`Id. ¶¶ 27–31, Fig. 1.
`Regarding the audio player 12 and the mobile phone 13, the user can
`assign a priority level to each sound source device. Ex. 1022 ¶ 38. For
`example, if a higher priority level is given to the phone and the user is
`listening to the audio player, upon receiving a call, the user is “automatically
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`switched” by the audio output apparatus to the phone. Id. ¶ 39. Ending the
`call, and thus disconnecting the phone from the audio output device, the
`audio player or second sound source device is “automatically selected”
`again. Id. ¶ 42.
`Similarly, if the third sound source device, the audio guidance device
`14, is connected to the audio output apparatus 11, it may be given the
`“highest priority” among the three devices. Ex. 1022 ¶ 45. In this situation,
`the wireless output device is “automatically switched from the sound source
`device 12 or 13 to the sound source device 14” when “the headphone 111 is
`generating sound from the audio data transmitted from the sound source
`device 12 or 13.” Id.
`Figure 3 of Nakagawa is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 is a block diagram of the audio output apparatus of Figure 1.
`Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 17, 52. A microphone 112 is part of the mobile phone of the
`second sound source device and transmits speech input to a mobile phone
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`network. Id. ¶ 30. The audio output apparatus 11 includes a control unit 32,
`which is a processor that controls other components. Id. ¶ 54, Fig. 3. As
`shown in Figure 3, the control unit 32 “executes the programs stored in the
`memory device 31 to control the audio-data generating unit 33, audio data-
`outputting unit 34, prior-connection request analyzing unit 35, sound-source
`switching unit 36, and wireless communication device 37.” Id.
`The sound-source switching unit 36 determines from which sound-
`source device the headset “should acquire audio data.” Ex. 1022 ¶ 58.
`When a sound-source device is triggered to send audio data to the headset,
`the device “transmits a wireless-connection request to the” headset and
`“starts a procedure to establish” a wireless connection with the headset. Id.
`¶ 61. For example, the mobile phone, the second sound-source device 14,
`“is triggered when it receives a call from . . . the mobile phone network.” Id.
`¶ 62. The sound-source device “generates a priority-level notifying
`command” indicating the device’s “priority level.” Id. ¶ 63. As discussed
`above, the “sound source is automatically switched in accordance with the
`priority levels.” Id. ¶ 72.
`
`2. Wilson (Ex. 1021)10
`Wilson teaches recharging wireless headsets with rechargeable
`batteries using “a charging station,” “also . . . referred to as [a] docking
`station[].” Ex. 1021, 1:14–23. Wilson also teaches that conventional
`
`
`10 Wilson was filed August 31, 2005. Ex. 1021, code (22). Petitioner
`alleges Wilson is prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e) or post-AIA § 102(a)
`depending on whether or not we agree with the priority argument Petitioner
`makes regarding Pelland. Pet. 54; see also Section III.M below (analyzing
`the challenge based on Pelland).
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`docking stations were compatible with over-ear headphone assemblies. Id.
`at 1:34–44, 2:44–47, 4:4–27, Figs. 1, 4.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is a perspective view of a wireless headset.
`Ex. 1021, 2: 61–62. “The wireless headset includes a headband 30, speaker
`18, speaker 20, and a wireless communication module installed within the
`housing of the headset.” Id. at 4:5–7.
`3. Claim 1
`Claim 1 is an independent apparatus claim illustrative of the claimed
`subject matter. See Section II.D above. Patent Owner argues there would
`have been no motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine
`Nakagawa with Wilson. PO Resp. 17–26. Patent Owner also argues,
`Nakagawa’s “control unit,” which the Petition alleges is the claimed
`“processor,” is not the structure of Nakagawa which “perform[s] the source-
`switching.” Id. at 27 (citing Pet. 66).
`We first analyze the parties’ dispute as to reasons for combining
`Nakagawa and Wilson, and address Patent Owner’s arguments in support of
`patentability. We follow with Petitioner’s showing regarding the undisputed
`limitations of claim 1.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`a. Reasons for Nakagawa and Wilson Combination
`Petitioner relies on Wilson’s Figure 4 for the “form-factor”11 it
`combines with Nakagawa. Pet. 60–61. Petitioner advances three reasons
`why a person of ordinary skill would have implemented Wilson’s “form-
`factor” with Nakagawa’s portable audio player. Id. at 60–62.
`The first reason Petitioner alleges is Wilson’s stereo design, using two
`speakers, would have been “consistent” with Nakagawa’s intended use as a
`portable audio player and its illustrated wireless headset having two
`earphones. Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 3, 28, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 236;
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 125). Second, Petitioner argues that Nakagawa suggests its
`wireless headset is battery powered which would lead a person of ordinary
`skill to Wilson’s teaching using rechargeable batteries and a docking station
`for recharging wireless headsets. Id. at 62 (citing Ex. 1021, 1:5–13;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 237). Third, Petitioner asserts that “stereo wireless headsets
`were known and common” and incorporating them into the two-earphone
`design of Nakagawa “would have been applying a known technique to
`improve similar devices in the same way (i.e., to produce stereo sound).” Id.
`at 62 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 238).
`Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill would have expected
`success in combining Wilson with Nakagawa. Pet. 62. According to
`Petitioner, the resulting combination required “only ordinary skill to
`implement” because Nakagawa’s headset with two connected earpieces was
`a “well-known configuration” that a person of ordinary skill “would have
`
`
`11 “Another design consideration for headphone assemblies is the overall
`form factor of the assembly itself—e.g., physical design of the body and
`earphones’ housing.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 50.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`understood could (and likely did) comprise respective speakers,” as taught
`by Wilson. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 239; Ex. 1005 ¶ 125).
`Patent Owner disputes generally that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have reasons to combine Wilson with Nakagawa.12 PO Resp. 17.
`Patent Owner summarizes Petitioner’s reasons as “(i) enabling a stereo
`design using two speakers, (ii) the absence of a power source in Nakagawa,
`and (iii) that stereo wireless headsets are known and common.” Id. at 18
`(citing Pet. 61–62). Patent Owner also disputes the showing made of a need
`for a wireless design and application of a known technique to improve
`similar devices. Id. (citing Pet. 51).
`Patent Owner argues that Nakagawa alone shows the use of two
`headphones and Wilson is cited to “give rise to Petitioner’s irrelevant
`reasons for the combinations.” PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1022, Fig. 1
`(annotated)). Thus, Patent Owner alleges “Nakagawa already comprises a
`stereo design” and that reason for the combination is “moot.” Id. at 20
`(citing Ex. 2023 ¶ 33).
`Patent Owner also argues that achieving a completely wireless design
`would not lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to look at Wilson. PO
`Resp. 20. Patent Owner points to Nakagawa as connecting the headphones
`by wire, not wirelessly. Id. (citing Ex. 2023 ¶ 34).
`
`
`12 Patent Owner’s arguments for the Nakagawa and Wilson combination
`analyzed here are substantially the same as for the Nakagawa and Rosener
`combination analyzed in Section III.E below. See PO Resp. 17 (referring to
`both Wilson and Rosener). Wilson and Rosener are both argued by
`Petitioner as showing the recited “rechargeable battery,” limitation 1.f. Pet.
`66 (Wilson), 77 (Rosener). Patent Owner focuses on Wilson and we limit
`our analysis here to Wilson, addressing Rosener in Section III.E.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00297
`Patent 10,368,155 B2
`As to Petitioner’s reason based on lack of a power source in
`Nakagawa, Patent Owner argues the issue is not whether a battery would
`have been understood as beneficial to Nakagawa. PO Resp. 20 (citing
`Ex. 2023 ¶ 35). Rather, the issue is “whether Rosener’s battery or Wilson’s
`battery is capable of satisfying unknown power requirements of unknown
`components, particularly Nakagawa’s sound-source switching devices 35,
`36, in addition to powering components in common between the Nakagawa
`design and the Rosener design or Wilson design.” Id. at 20–21 (citing
`Ex. 2023 ¶ 35). Patent Owner recognizes that no power source is disclosed
`in Nakagawa. Id. at 21 (citing Pet. 62; Ex. 2023 ¶ 36). Patent Owner
`contends that, even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood the need for a power source, the power requirements of
`Nakagawa’s sound switching devices 35 and 36 are unknown. Id. (citing
`Ex. 2023 ¶ 36 (testifying that Nakagawa does not disclose structure of the
`switching devices 35 and 36 or whether they could be implemented with
`software)).
`Patent Owner argues the design of Wilson diff
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
