`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BOSE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________
`
`CASE: IPR2021-00297
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,368,155
`_____________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSEPH C. MCALEXANDER III
`
`
`
`
`August 27, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 1
`I.
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED .......................................................................... 4
`III.
`SUMMARY OF THE '155 PATENT .......................................................... 4
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 5
`V.
`APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ....................................................... 7
`A. Claim Construction .................................................................................. 7
`B. Obviousness ............................................................................................. 8
`VI. CLAIM 1 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO A POSITA IN
`VIEW OF THE NAKAGAWA-ROSENER COMBINATION .............. 12
`VII. DEPENDENT CLAIM 5 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN
`VIEW OF THE NAKAGAWA-ROSENER COMBINATION FOR
`REASONS IN ADDITION TO THOSE ADVANCED WITH RESPECT
`TO CLAIM 1 ................................................................................................ 19
`VIII. CLAIM 1 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE
`REZVANI-SKULLEY COMBINATION ................................................. 20
`IX. CONCLUDING REMARKS ...................................................................... 25
`
`Page 2 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I, Joseph C. McAlexander III, declare as follows:
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Koss Corp. (“Koss”) as a technical
`
`expert in connection with the inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding identified
`
`above for U.S. Patent 10,368,155 (the “'155 Patent”). I submit this declaration in
`
`support of Koss’s response to the petition.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`I have a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from North
`3.
`
`Carolina State University and have studied neural science at the University of Texas
`
`Graduate School of Biomedical Science.
`
`4.
`
`Upon completion of my electrical engineering degree in 1969, I was
`
`commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Army. For 2 years, I managed the air defense
`
`operation for
`
`the New England area, which
`
`included radar and secure
`
`communication channels to aircraft, missile batteries, and U.S. Command. I then
`
`commanded a signal battalion in South Korea for 1 year, designing and orchestrating
`
`at the division level the first of its kind communication power grid mapping study
`
`using AM and FM transmission/reception, among others, and utilizing crypto
`
`security transmission/reception methods.
`
`5.
`
`I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the state of Texas (Reg. No.
`
`79,454) and am a recognized inventor on thirty-one U.S. patents. I have forty-nine
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 3 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`years of professional experience, during which I designed and analyzed a variety of
`
`microcircuits, semiconductors, and control systems, amongst other technologies for
`
`Texas Instruments, Inc. and EPI Technologies, Inc. Specifically, I have designed
`
`Dynamic Random Access Memories (“DRAMs”), Static Random Access Memories
`
`(“SRAMs”), Charged Coupled Devices (“CCDs”), Shift Registers (“SRs”), and a
`
`variety of functional circuits, including input/output buffers for addresses and data
`
`transmission, decoders, clocks, sense amplifiers, fault tolerant parallel-to-serial data
`
`paths for video applications, level shifters, converters, pumps, logic devices,
`
`wireless communication systems, and microelectromechanical systems (“MEMs”).
`
`I possess significant expertise in operations and manufacturing associated with these
`
`technologies, including a sophisticated knowledge of quality control, testing,
`
`reliability, and failure analyses.
`
`6.
`
`I have conducted high level instruction to design and process engineers
`
`and managers at Texas Instruments, among others, in Solid State Device Physics,
`
`Semiconductor Processing, Circuit Design Techniques, and Statistical Quality
`
`Control Methods. I have also instructed corporate audiences in Effectiveness
`
`Training, Japanese Manufacturing Techniques, and problem recognition and
`
`solution methods and tools.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 4 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`
`7.
`
`As part of licensing of my IP circa 2002 – 2004, I negotiated and
`
`executed a number of licensing and design programs to provide GPS tracking and
`
`transmission of information wirelessly, using paging and CDMA. The technologies
`
`included partnerships for skier tracking with Snowtrax, offender tracking with
`
`Stellar Technology Enterprises, pet tracking with The Procter & Gamble Company,
`
`journalist tracking with CNN, asset tracking with TrackDaddy, and family tracking
`
`with Disney, to name a few. I also advised a startup between 2013 and 2018 in peer-
`
`to-peer encrypted cellular communication.
`
`8.
`
`I have provided consultancy
`
`services associated with
`
`the
`
`aforementioned technologies.
`
` My consulting career began with Cochran
`
`Consulting, Inc. in 1991. Currently, I am the President of McAlexander Sound, Inc.
`
`and the Managing Director of McAlexander Sound Pte Ltd., where I offer such
`
`consultancy services and serve as a Technical Advisor for highly-specialized
`
`matters. I provide expert witness services for the protection of intellectual property.
`
`As an expert witness, I have investigated processes and designs associated with
`
`personal computers, peripheral computers, software, and wireless communications
`
`systems,
`
`including
`
`telephones, microprocessors,
`
`controllers, memories,
`
`programmable logic devices, and other consumer electronics.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 5 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`
`9.
`
`As part of my work with McAlexander Sound, I have gained intimate
`
`experience with sound and lighting systems. I am very familiar with how acoustic
`
`speakers operate and the design issues associated with sound systems.
`
`10. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A hereto.
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`I considered information from various sources in forming my opinions
`11.
`
`expressed in this declaration. In addition to drawing from over two decades of
`
`personal experience in the field of circuit design and wireless technologies, I have
`
`also reviewed the IPR Petition and its exhibits, including the '155 Patent (BOSE-
`
`1001), Rezvani (BOSE-1016), Skulley (BOSE-1017), Nakagawa (BOSE-1022),
`
`Rosener (BOSE-1020), Wilson (BOSE-1021), the Declaration of Tim A. Williams
`
`(BOSE-1003), the Declaration of John G. Casali (BOSE-1005), and the deposition
`
`transcript for Dr. Williams (KOSS-2024). Furthermore, I reviewed Koss’s response
`
`filed herewith in detail and I agree with its analysis and conclusions regarding the
`
`non-obviousness of the '155 Patent.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE '155 PATENT
`12. The '155 Patent is directed to and discloses a wireless headphone
`
`assembly that comprises, among other things, two (“first and second”) earphones
`
`and a processor. The “headphone assembly is configured, with [a] processor, to
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 6 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`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.”
`
`BOSE-1001, 18:14-19. For example, if the headphone assembly is receiving digital
`
`audio content via a first wireless network, and the headphone assembly loses its
`
`connection to that first wireless network or the headphone assembly goes out of
`
`range of the first network, the headphone assembly transitions automatically to
`
`receiving digital audio content via a second wireless network. Id., 1:67-2:6; 5:9-15.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I have been informed and understand that patent claims are construed
`13.
`
`in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and supported by the prosecution
`
`history pertaining to the patent.
`
`14. Counsel has advised me that, to determine the appropriate skill level of
`
`one skilled in the art, I may consider the following factors: (a) the types of problems
`
`encountered by those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto; (b) the
`
`sophistication of the technology in question, and the rapidity with which innovations
`
`occur in the field; (c) the educational level of active workers in the field; and (d) the
`
`educational level of the inventor. I considered those factors and also considered the
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 7 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`engineers that I worked with at both Texas Instruments, Inc. and EPI Technologies,
`
`Inc.
`
`15. The relevant technology field for the '155 Patent is systems and
`
`methods for configuring a wireless headphone assembly to receive streaming audio
`
`from a data source, such as a digital audio player or a computer. BOSE-1001, 2:1-
`
`3. The wireless headphone assembly may transition automatically between data
`
`sources without user intervention. BOSE-1001, 3:1-3. Based on this, and the factors
`
`described above, it is in my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) to which the ’155 Patent pertains would be someone working in the
`
`electrical engineering field and specializing in or knowledgeable of speaker
`
`components for small wireless devices. Such a person would have a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering and at least two or more years of work experience
`
`in the industry. In my opinion, extensive work experience and technical training
`
`might substitute for educational requirements, while advanced degrees, such as a
`
`relevant M.S. or Ph.D., might substitute for experience. Accordingly, such a person
`
`would have studied and have practical experience with circuit design, speaker
`
`components, and wireless communication.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 8 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`V. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`I am not an attorney. For purposes of this declaration, I have been
`16.
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my analysis and
`
`opinions, as set forth below.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`I understand that claim terms are generally given their ordinary and
`17.
`
`customary meaning, which is the meaning that the term would have to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of
`
`the earliest priority date of the patent. I further understand that the POSITA is
`
`deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which
`
`a claim term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification and file history.
`
`18.
`
`I am informed by counsel that the patent specification has been
`
`described as the best guide to determining the meaning of a claim term, and is thus,
`
`highly relevant to the interpretation of claim terms. I understand that for claim terms
`
`that do not have a customary meaning within the art, the specification usually
`
`supplies the best context of understanding the meaning of those terms. I also
`
`understand that claim terms should be understood in the context of the claim as a
`
`whole.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 9 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history can further inform the meaning
`
`of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventors understood the invention
`
`and whether the inventors limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making
`
`the claim scope narrower than it otherwise would be. Extrinsic evidence may also
`
`be consulted in construing the claim terms, such as my experience and expert
`
`testimony.
`
`20.
`
`I have not been asked to provide any specific definitions for any of the
`
`terms in the claims I have analyzed. If asked, I would undertake such an endeavor.
`
`Accordingly, I have treated each claim term as it would be understood to have its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITA in light of the specification, as outlined
`
`below.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that some claims are independent, and that these claims
`
`are complete by themselves. Other claims refer to these independent claims and are
`
`“dependent” from those independent claims. The dependent claims include all the
`
`limitations of the claims from which they depend.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I am informed that a patent cannot be properly granted for subject
`22.
`
`matter that would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention and that a patent claim directed to such obvious subject matter
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 10 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`is invalid (under 35 U.S.C. § 103). I am also informed that, in assessing the
`
`obviousness of claimed subject matter, one should evaluate obviousness over the
`
`prior art from the perspective of a POSITA before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention. It is my further understanding that obviousness is to be
`
`determined based on several factual inquiries:
`
`i. The scope and content of the prior art;
`ii. The difference or differences between the subject matter of the
`claim (as construed) and the prior art; and
`iii. The level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of
`the subject matter of the claim.
`Against this background, the obviousness or non-obviousness of the claim is
`
`determined.
`
`23.
`
`I am informed that relevant objective factors (the “secondary indicia”)
`
`indicating non-obviousness might be utilized to give light to the circumstances
`
`surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. I am informed
`
`that relevant secondary indicia can include:
`
`i. Commercial success of the products or methods covered by the
`patent claims;
`ii. A long-felt need for the invention;
`iii. Failed attempts by others to make the invention;
`iv. Teaching away from the invention by the prior art;
`v. Copying of the invention by others in the field;
`9
`
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`
`vi. Unexpected results achieved by the invention;
`vii. Praise, approval, or acclaim of the invention by others in the field;
`viii. Commercial acquiescence to the validity of the patents;
`ix. Skepticism of experts;
`x. Expressions of surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the
`subject matter of the claims; and
`xi. Whether the patentee proceeded contrary to accepted wisdom of the
`prior art.
`I am informed that, in order to be relevant to the issue of obviousness, such
`
`secondary indicia must have some nexus to the claimed invention.
`
`24.
`
`I am informed that sometimes obviousness is shown by combining
`
`multiple prior art teachings under a test commonly referred to as the “teaching-
`
`suggestion-motivation” or “TSM” test, which addresses the common situation where
`
`previously known components are recited in a claim. I am informed that, according
`
`to the TSM test, it must be shown explicitly or implicitly that there is some
`
`suggestion or motivation in the prior art to combine known elements to form the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`25.
`
`I am also informed that additional rationales may support an
`
`obviousness determination when dealing with a known problem, including:
`
`i. Combining prior art according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`ii. Simple substitution of a known element for another element to
`10
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`
`obtain predictable results;
`iii. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or
`products in some way;
`iv. Applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`v. Obvious to try―that is, choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
`vi. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations for use
`in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives
`or other market forces if the variations are predictable to a POSITA.
`I am informed that, when I conduct my analysis, I should guard against
`
`26.
`
`hindsight, that is, using the claimed invention(s) to retroactively form the basis of
`
`any combination of prior art references. To guard against this, a reason must be
`
`shown to combine or modify prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed subject
`
`matter, and I have taken into consideration any teachings as expressed within the
`
`prior art references and the general common knowledge in the art at the time the
`
`claimed invention(s) was filed to guide my determination whether or not a POSITA
`
`would make any of the combinations or modifications proposed in the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 13 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`VI. CLAIM 1 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO A POSITA IN
`VIEW OF THE NAKAGAWA-ROSENER COMBINATION
`27. The '155 Patent is directed to a wireless headphone assembly that
`
`comprises, among other things, two (“first and second”) earphones and a processor.
`
`The “headphone assembly is configured, with [a] 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.”
`
`BOSE-1001, 18:14-19.
`
`28. For example, if the headphone assembly is receiving digital audio
`
`content via a first wireless network, and the headphone assembly loses its connection
`
`to that first wireless network or the headphone assembly goes out of range of the
`
`first network, the headphone assembly transitions automatically to receiving digital
`
`audio content via a second wireless network. Id., 1:67-2:6; 5:9-15.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that Petitioner asserts that independent claim 1 would have
`
`been obvious over Nakagawa (BOSE-1022) and Wilson (BOSE-1021) (Ground 3A)
`
`and over Nakagawa and Rosener (BOSE-1020) (Ground 3B). Pet. at 4. The Petition
`
`relies on Wilson in the Nakagawa-Wilson combination (Ground 3A), and on
`
`Rosener in the Nakagawa-Rosener combination (Ground 3B), to provide a
`
`rechargeable battery for powering Nakagawa’s wireless audio output apparatus 11,
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 14 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`which includes the sound-source switching devices 35, 36 (BOSE-1022, Fig. 3). Pet.
`
`at 66, 77.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that Petitioner advances three reasons in support of the
`
`Nakagawa-Wilson combination, the three reasons being: (i) enabling a stereo design
`
`using two speakers, (ii) the absence of a power source in Nakagawa, and (iii) that
`
`stereo wireless headset are known and common. Pet. at 61-62. Furthermore, I
`
`understand that Petitioner generically relies on two reasons advanced for the
`
`Rezvani-Rosener combination in support of the Nakagawa-Rosener combination,
`
`the reasons being: (i) enabling a completely wireless design, and (ii) applying a
`
`known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Pet. at 51.
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, the foregoing reasons fail to address whether the
`
`proposed combinations would have suggested to a POSITA using Rosener’s battery
`
`or Wilson’s battery to specifically power Nakagawa’s wireless audio output
`
`apparatus 11, which includes the sound-source switching devices 35, 36, in addition
`
`to other components of the of the headphone assembly of claim 1.
`
`32. Petitioner and its experts assert that “Nakagawa does not specify a
`
`form-factor for its wireless headset.” Pet. at 60. I disagree, as Nakagawa’s FIG. 1
`
`depicts two headphones 111 (highlighted by red boxes), which are connected via a
`
`wire (highlighted by a green box) to an audio output apparatus 11. Moreover,
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 15 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`Nakagawa’s ¶[0025] provides that “[t]he user who wears the wireless headset can
`
`listen to the audio data transmitted, by a radio signal, from a Sound Source device
`
`and output through the headphone (or earphone) 111.” BOSE-1022 at 25. Even the
`
`specific locations of the microphone 112 are clearly depicted on the audio output
`
`apparatus 11. BOSE-1022 at FIG. 1, 30.
`
`
`33. Nakagawa’s headphone assembly has a stereo design. Stereo sound is
`
`a sound directed through two or more speakers so that it seems to surround the
`
`listener and to come from more than one source. Nakagawa’s headphone assembly
`
`discloses two headphones 111.
`
`34. A POSITA, given his/her skill level, would not have been motivated to
`
`combine Nakagawa and Wilson to achieve a completely wireless design.
`
`Nakagawa’s design utilizes a wired connection between the headphones 111 and the
`
`audio output apparatus 11. Incorporating a battery from Wilson or Rosener into the
`
`14
`
`
`Page 16 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`Nakagawa design does not convert the Nakagawa design into a completely wireless
`
`design.
`
`35. A POSITA would not have been motivated to incorporate Rosener’s
`
`battery or Wilson’s battery with the Nakagawa design. The issue faced by a POSITA
`
`would not be whether Rosener’s battery or Wilson’s battery would have been
`
`beneficial to Nakagawa’s design, but 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.
`
`36. Nakagawa does not describe a power source. Even if a POSITA would
`
`have understood that a power source is necessary for successful operation of the
`
`Nakagawa design, a POSITA would not have readily reached for Rosener’s battery
`
`or Wilson’s battery at least because the Nakagawa design includes unknown
`
`components, particularly the sound-source switching devices 35, 36, with unknown
`
`power requirements. Nakagawa does not describe how the sound-source switching
`
`devices 35, 36 are implemented, but refers to them as “devices.” Instead, Nakagawa
`
`describes the sound-source switching devices 35, 36 in functional terms (i.e., what
`
`functions they perform). Thus, Nakagawa does not disclose to a POSITA how to
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 17 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`implement the sound-source switching devices 35, 36. It is unclear that they would
`
`be implemented with software. First, Nakagawa refers to the sound-source
`
`switching devices 35, 36 as “devices” and a POSITA would not normally refer to
`
`software in this context as a “device.” Second, Nakagawa’s Figure 3 shows the
`
`sound-source switching devices 35, 36 separate from the memory device 31. If the
`
`sound-source switching devices 35, 36 were implemented with software, I (and a
`
`POSITA) would have expected Nakagawa’s Figure 3 to depict the sound-source
`
`switching devices 35, 36 as associated with the memory device 31 because software
`
`implemented in a system is stored in memory.
`
`37. Moreover, neither Wilson nor Rosener discusses the power capabilities
`
`of their batteries. Even if a POSITA would have understood that Rosener’s battery
`
`or Wilson’s battery is sufficient to power components in common with the
`
`Nakagawa design, the inclusion of additional components, such as Nakagawa’s
`
`sound-source switching devices 35, 36, with additional power requirements would
`
`not have motivated the POSITA to readily rely on Rosener’s battery or Wilson’s
`
`battery to power the Nakagawa design.. Accordingly, the lack of a power source in
`
`Nakagawa is likely to dissuade a POSITA from arriving at the combinations
`
`proposed by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 18 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`
`38. The proposed Nakagawa-Wilson and Nakagawa-Rosener combinations
`
`are not a simple application of known techniques to improve similar devices in the
`
`same way. The Nakagawa design is significantly different than the Rosener design
`
`and the Wilson Design. For one, the Nakagawa design requires additional
`
`components, i.e., the sound-source switching devices 35, 36, with additional (yet
`
`unknown) power requirements. Moreover, unlike Rosener and Wilson, the
`
`Nakagawa design separates its headphones 111 from its audio output apparatus 11
`
`that includes the sound-source switching devices 35, 36. BOSE-1022 at FIG. 1.
`
`39.
`
`In addition, the proposed combinations fail to improve the Nakagawa
`
`design in the manner suggested by Petitioner. I understand that Petitioner proposes
`
`relying on Wilson’s battery in the Nakagawa-Wilson combination, and on Rosener’s
`
`battery in the Nakagawa-Rosener combination, to power Nakagawa’s sound-source
`
`switching devices 35, 36 (BOSE-1022, Fig. 3), in addition to powering components
`
`in common between Nakagawa and Wilson, and Nakagawa and Rosener,
`
`respectively. However, with no knowledge of the nature of Nakagawa’s sound-
`
`switching devices 35, 36, stretching the capabilities of Wilson’s battery and
`
`Rosener’s battery to support powering Nakagawa’s sound-source switching devices
`
`35, 36 (BOSE-1022, Fig. 3), in addition to powering components in common with
`
`Wilson and Rosener, respectively, would have crippled the Nakagawa design.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 19 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`Accordingly, this is clearly not a simple application of known techniques to improve
`
`similar devices in the same way, as suggested by Petitioner.
`
`40. The combination of Nakagawa and Rosener does not constitute a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a POSITA has good reason to pursue.
`
`Earbuds are small in size to fit into a user’s ear and, as such, include small batteries
`
`with limited power capabilities. The POSITA has to contend with a number of issues
`
`such as size and weight restrictions for a battery for use Rosener’s earbud. The
`
`modification can cause an increase in the size and/or the weight of the earbud,
`
`rendering it uncomfortable to a user or even unusable. Moreover, a POSITA may
`
`also have to contend with the additional drain on the earphone battery by the
`
`additional components from Nakagawa, e.g., the switching devices 35, 36, which
`
`may be associated with additional heat dissipation from the earbud to the ear of the
`
`user. The POSITA will also need to rebalance the power consumption budget
`
`between the components added from Nakagawa and the preexisting components of
`
`Rosener’s earbud to avoid overloading the battery. All of these parameters must be
`
`experimentally determined.
`
`41. The absence of any description in Nakagawa as to any structure
`
`associated with these “functional components” (i.e., the sound-source switching
`
`devices 35, 36), including their power requirements and internal components, would
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 20 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`have frustrated any expectation of success for a POSA in utilizing Wilson’s or
`
`Rosener’s battery to power Nakagawa’s wireless audio output apparatus, including
`
`the “functional components.”
`
`42. Without knowing the power requirements of Nakagawa’s sound-source
`
`switching devices 35, 36, or even their internal components, which, if known, might
`
`provide some clue as to their required power, a POSA would have no expectation of
`
`success without undue experimentation. The foregoing issue is exacerbated by the
`
`need to position the headphone assembly adjacent a user’s head in order to function
`
`properly. BOSE-1001, 18:3 (claim 1 reciting “first and second earphones”).
`
`43.
`
` For safety and user experience, a POSITA would have had to ensure
`
`that the proposed Nakagawa-Wilson and the Nakagawa-Rosener combinations
`
`would not cause excessive heating in a manner that could injure or bother the user
`
`of the headphone assembly. The POSITA would also have to ensure that the
`
`combination would not significantly interfere with Nakagawa’s other circuitry.
`
`44. With no information on the nature of the devices 35, 36, or their power
`
`requirements, a POSITA would not have a basis to modify Nakagawa’s design in
`
`the manner suggested by Petitioner, at least in view of the potential risk to the user.
`
`VII. DEPENDENT CLAIM 5 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN
`VIEW OF THE NAKAGAWA-ROSENER COMBINATION FOR
`REASONS IN ADDITION TO THOSE ADVANCED WITH RESPECT
`TO CLAIM 1
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 21 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`
`45. Claim 5 depends from claim 4. Claim 4 depends from independent
`
`claim 1. Claim 4 requires that the earphones of claim 1 are earbuds. Claim 5 requires
`
`each of the earbuds to include an antenna, a wireless communication circuit
`
`connected to the at least connected to the antenna, a processor in communication
`
`with the wireless communication circuit, and a rechargeable battery for powering
`
`the headphone assembly. BOSE-1001 at 18.
`
`46. Claim 5 would not have been obvious in view of the Nakagawa-
`
`Rosener combination (Ground 3B) for additional reasons specific to claim 5 at least
`
`because: (i) a POSITA would not have transformed the Nakagawa design to
`
`Rosener’s completely wireless earbuds, (ii) relying on Rosener’s battery to power
`
`the Nakagawa components in addition to Rosener’s components is not applying a
`
`known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, and (iii) the proposed
`
`combination relies on hindsight reconstruction.
`
`VIII. CLAIM 1 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE
`REZVANI-SKULLEY COMBINATION
`47. The Rezvani-Skulley combination fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at
`
`least claim 1’s element of “the headphone assembly 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
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 22 of 68
`
`KOSS-2023
`IPR2021-00297
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00297, U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`received wirelessly by the headphone assembly via a second wireless network.”
`
`BOSE-1001, 18:14-19.
`
`48. Claim 1 expressly reserves the automatic transitioning task for the
`
`processor of the headphone assembly. Both ¶[0041] and ¶[0050] of Rezvani explain
`
`that the handset—not the headset—supports the seamless handoff. Paragraph 41
`
`states that “the handset can support seamless handoff between two systems.”
`
`BOSE-1016, ¶[0041] (emphasis added); Paragraph 50 similarly explains that “the
`
`handset could switch a VoIP call … to a local area network
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
