IPR2021-00381, No. 2048-78 Exhibit - Exhibit 2048 Demonstrative Exhibit (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2022)

DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Apple Inc., Petitioner
`v.
`Koss Corporation, Patent Owner
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`April 5, 2022
`
`IPR2021-00381
`KOSS-2048
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`3
`
`

`‘982 Patent
`
`True Wireless Earphones
`• Body portion
`• Ear canal portion
`• Elongated portion
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`

`‘982 Patent
`
`Wireless earphones include:
`• Wireless
`communication circuit
`• Processor
`• Speaker/transducer
`• Microphone
`• Antenna
`• Rechargeable power
`source
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, 11
`
`5
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`‘982 Patent – Transceiver Circuit may be SoC
`
`Ex. 1001, 11
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 6
`
`12
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, 10
`
`13
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Challenges in Petition
`
`Pet., 1-2
`
`14
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Independent Claim 1
`Each of the first and second wireless
`earphones comprises:
`• A body portion
`• An ear canal portion “that is
`inserted into an ear of the user
`when worn by the user”
`• An elongated portion “that extends
`away from the body portion such
`that the elongated portion extends
`downwardly when the ear canal
`portion is inserted into the ear of
`the user”
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 18
`
`15
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Claims 4, 5 and 14
`
`Processor circuit for one (“first”)
`earphone initiates transmission of a
`request to a remote network server
`that is in communication with mobile
`DAP.
`
`Processor circuits receive firmware
`upgrades pushed from remote
`network server.
`
`16
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Claims 15, 19 and 20
`
`Processor circuit for one (“first”)
`earphone processes audible
`utterances and transmits a
`communication based on them.
`
`Processor circuits include a DSP that
`provides a sound quality
`enhancement.
`
`17
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`• Rosener “is silent as to the implementation details of
`arranging Rosener’s electrical components with the
`compact form factor of each of the earphones 502,
`504, and contains only a limited disclosure of the
`details of the earphones’ for factor.”
`• “A POSITA would have been motivated to use Hankey’s
`techniques to arrange the components of each of
`Rosener’s earphones 502, 504 to fit within the small,
`compact form factor shown in Rosener’s Fig. 5.”
`
`Testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Cooperstock, Ex. 1003, ¶¶45-46
`
`19
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`“… a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`the ‘982 patent’s Critical Date … would have had at
`least a Bachelor’s Degree in an academic area
`emphasizing electrical engineering, computer
`science, or a similar discipline, and at least two
`years of experience in wireless communications
`across short distance or local area networks.
`Superior education could compensate for a
`deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.”
`Testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Cooperstock, Ex. 1003, ¶ 30
`
`20
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`• Bachelor’s degree in computer science
`• Two years of experience in local area networks
`• Not an engineer
`• No skills or knowledge specific to designing wireless
`earphones
`• Designing acoustic transducers into wireless earphones
`• Fitting components into small form factor
`• Powering a wireless earphone given safety and size
`constraints
`
`Ex. 2038, ¶20; Ex. 1003, ¶30; Ex. 2037, 30-31
`
`23
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Baseline POSITA
`• Bachelor’s degree in
`computer science
`• Two years of experience in
`local area networks
`• Not an engineer
`• No skills or knowledge
`specific to designing
`wireless earphones
`
`Ex. 2038, ¶20; Ex. 1003, ¶30; Ex. 2037, 30-31
`
`Dr. Cooperstock
`• Ph.D in Electrical and
`Computer Engineering
`• Professor at McGill University
`since 1997
`• More than 30 years of
`experience
`• Started at IBM in 1989
`• Numerous academic
`publications and patents
`Ex. 1003, 121-150; Ex. 2037, 37
`
`24
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Claim 1 Would Not Have Been Obvious
`• Petitioner bears burden of showing claim would have been
`obvious.
`• Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015)
`• Petitioner proposed a POSITA skill level that includes the
`Baseline POSITA.
`• Ex. 1003, ¶30
`• Evidence shows that claim 1 would not have been obvious to,
`at least, the Baseline POSITA. Ex. 2038, ¶¶ 46-56.
`• No reasonable expectation of success integrating Rosener’s
`components into small form factor wireless earphones.
`• Confirmed by Cooperstock’s lack of knowledge for components of
`wireless earphones.
`
`25
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Claim 1 Would Not Have Been Obvious
`Dr. Cooperstock could not explain how many
`components in the relied-upon prior art operate.
`• How speaker elements in Rosener operate (slides 27-35)
`• How Rosener’s data buffers operate to compensate for
`latencies in data streams (slides 36-38)
`• How sub-carrier modulation works (slides 48-50)
`• Suitable materials for Hankey’s flexible electrical
`connectors (slide 39)
`A POSITA could not, with a reasonable expectation of
`success, arrive at Claim 1 from the proposed
`Rosener-Hankey combination. Ex. 2038, ¶¶46-56.
`
`26
`
`

`Cooperstock Could Not Explain How Speakers Operate
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Q. How would a POSITA, as you opined about
`their skill levels in your report, understand the
`term “magnetic element attached to a voice-
`coil actuated diaphragm”?
`
`A. … I don’t believe I’ve used that term in my
`declaration, so I haven’t formulated a
`definition beforehand in terms of how a
`POSITA would interpret the terminology
`that’s used in the prior art references.
`
`If I’ve … discussed it in one of my paragraphs
`in the declaration, I’m happy to go back and
`look at that and try to give you a more
`elaborate comment, but, otherwise, it’s not
`something I’ve considered.”
`
`Cooperstock Tr., Ex. 2037, 36-37
`
`27
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 30
`
`

`Cooperstock Could Not Explain How Speakers Operate
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Q. So can you describe for me how a
`magnetic element attached to a voice-coil
`actuated diaphragm would work as a
`transducer element?
`
`So, again, it’s not something that I’ve
`A.
`described in my declaration. … the best I can
`tell you in terms of generalities is that that
`would be interpreted as a speaker or
`constituent elements of a speaker.
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 30
`
`Cooperstock Tr., Ex. 2037, 37-38
`
`28
`
`

`Cooperstock Could Not Explain How Speakers Operate
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Can you describe for me how it
`Q.
`operates?
`
`… A
`
`Yeah. So, again, it's not something that
`.
`I've gone into in detail, and I haven't
`described it, I should say, in detail in my
`declaration. I haven't even used the
`terminology in my declaration. So if you want
`me to get into loud speaker design and the
`elements that are associated with that, we're
`going into a whole different path of detail.
`
`Cooperstock Tr., Ex. 2037, 38
`
`29
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 30
`
`

`Cooperstock Could Not Explain How Speakers Operate
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Q. Well, I'd like to hear your explanation of
`that path of detail. Could you –
`
`A. Well, at a -- you know, it's, once again,
`not something that I've, you know, given thought to.
`As I was reading the description, as I went through, I
`said what is relevant here in terms of the claim of the
`'982 patent. We're talking about an audio transducer
`or equivalent to the speaker technology.
`
`We, you know, have lots and lots of experience, decades
`worth, in that sort of technology. That's been around
`well before the critical date of the '982. And an engineer
`who is seeking to implement that technology would,
`you know, have available many references to describe
`the operation of such an element.
`
`Cooperstock Tr., Ex. 2037, 39
`
`30
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 30
`
`

`Cooperstock Could Not Explain How Speakers Operate
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Can you describe how an electrostatically
`Q.
`charged diaphragm works as a transducer
`element?
`
`So much the same as the magnetic element
`A.
`attached to a voice-coil-actuated diaphragm, it's not a
`term that I have made use of in my declaration. I
`haven't tried to define it. I haven't considered how a
`POSITA would define it or what their detailed
`understanding of it would be other than to know that
`this is another form of transducer technology that can
`be used to render audio.
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 30
`
`Cooperstock Tr., Ex. 2037, 40
`
`31
`
`

`Cooperstock Could Not Explain How Speakers Operate
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Is an electrostatically charged diaphragm
`Q.
`different from a magnetic element voice-coil-
`actuated diaphragm?
`
`This is, again, something that I would want
`A.
`to dig into the literature in detail to be able to
`form a response that is accurate. You know, off
`the cuff of my head, looking at it right now, I
`would have to guess at it, but, you know, I would
`say that this is a form of audio transduction and
`whether there are similarities or differences
`between the terms, that's a matter for looking
`further into the literature.
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 30
`
`Cooperstock Tr., Ex. 2037, 40-41
`
`33
`
`

`Cooperstock Could Not Explain How Speakers Operate
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`So could one transducer element have both
`Q.
`a voice-coil-actuated diaphragm and an
`electrostatically charged diaphragm?
`
`This is not something that I've considered.
`A.
`I'd really have to go into details of, you know,
`speaker design, loud speaker design, earphone
`design in terms of the actuating element.
`
`My understanding is that the detailed
`mechanics of the transducer is not the subject of
`the '982 patent, nor is it, you know, one that is
`dealt with extensively in the areas of the prior
`art that I've made reference to in my declaration.
`
`Cooperstock Tr., Ex. 2037, 42
`
`34
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 30
`
`

`Cooperstock Could Not Explain How Speakers Operate
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Could you explain how balanced armature
`Q.
`driver works?
`
`As before, this I understand as another
`A.
`transducer element possibility, and I have not gone
`into -- I haven't defined the term or sought to define
`the term in my declaration or given it any
`consideration.
`
`Is a balanced armature driver different
`Q.
`from a voice-coil-actuated diaphragm?
`
`As before, I'd have to go through the literature to
`A.
`get into the details as to whether the components
`were different or the same, what -- if there were
`differences, what those would involve. This is not
`something I've gone into in part of my preparation for
`today.
`
`Cooperstock Tr., Ex. 2037, 42
`
`35
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 30
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Cooperstock’s Explanation of How Rosener’s Data Buffers
`Operate to Compensate for Latencies in Data Streams Does
`Not Make Sense
`
`Q. So how does a fast A/D converter affect data
`occupancy of the buffer?
`
`… A
`
`Okay. So this is -- once again, it's not something
`.
`that I described in my declaration, but my
`understanding is that an A/D converter that is
`connected to a buffer will take samples out of
`that buffer...
`
`Right. Yeah, so it's taking samples out of the -- out of
`the buffer of the received data and passing it on to the
`next stage in the circuit. So if that A/D converter is
`running fast, it's going to take samples out of that
`buffer at a rate that is higher than intended.
`
`Cooperstock Tr., Ex. 2037, 45-46
`
`36
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 39
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Cooperstock’s Explanation of How Rosener’s Data Buffers
`Operate to Compensate for Latencies in Data Streams Does
`Not Make Sense
`
`Q. Does the buffers described in Rosener just
`store analog data?
`
`A. So reading Rosener -- and this is, again, not
`something that I've weighed in on in my
`declaration. But my understanding is that if
`there's an A/D converter that is consuming
`content from the buffer, that means the buffer is
`holding analog information or analog data.
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 39
`
`Cooperstock Tr., Ex. 2037, 49-50
`
`37
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Cooperstock’s Explanation of How Rosener’s Data Buffers
`Operate to Compensate for Latencies in Data Streams Does
`Not Make Sense
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 39
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s Testimony about Rosener’s
`Data Buffers
`• A/D converter samples received analog signal.
`• Data buffer stores digital values.
`• Rosener’s data buffers store the output of the
`corresponding A/D converter.
`• A/D converter does not take digitized samples
`out of data buffer.
`• Cooperstock’s explanation does not make
`sense and is inconsistent with Rosener.
`
`McAlexander Dec., Ex. 2038, ¶¶ 54-56
`
`38
`
`

`Cooperstock Could Not Identify Suitable Materials for the
`Flexible Electrical Connector in Rosener-Hankey Combination
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Cooperstock First Declaration
`“A PHOSITA would have been motivated
`to use Hankey’s techniques to arrange
`the components of each of Rosener’s
`earphones 502, 504 to fit within the
`small, compact form factor shown in
`Rosener’s FIG. 5.”
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 46
`
`Cooperstock Deposition
`“… in terms of the material of what sort
`of material is best suited for a flexible
`circuit board, that’s getting into more of
`the kind of materials science, which I
`think is going outside my expertise.
`So I’m not willing to hazard a guess here. I
`think I would be embarrassed in terms of
`my lack of proficiency with knowledge of
`different materials used for flexible
`circuit board construction”
`Ex. 2037, 67-68
`
`39
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner Failed to Prove that Claim 1 Wound Not
`Have Been Obvious
`
`• Petitioner asserts that claim 1 would have been obvious
`to a POSITA in view of Rosener and Hankey
`• Petitioner’s proposed POSITA skill level includes persons
`that would not have a reasonable expectation of
`arriving at Claim 1 in view of Rosener and Hankey
`• Baseline POSITA would not understand the components in
`Rosener’s earphones
`• Baseline POSITA would not have been motivated to use
`Hankey’s techniques to arrange the components of Rosener’s
`earphones to fit within a small form factor earphone.
`• Confirmed by testimony from Cooperstock and McAlexander
`Ex. 2038, ¶¶ 46-56
`
`40
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner Failed to Show that Claim 1 Would Have
`Been Obvious
`
`1)
`
`In light of these complexities, it would not have been
`obvious for a person with
`• A computer science degree,
`• Two years of experience with local area networks, and
`• No experience designing wireless headphones
`… to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 with a
`reasonable expectation of success. (Ex. 2038, ¶¶ 49, 52,
`56)
`
`2) Rosener-Hankey combination does not teach that each
`earphone includes a microphone.
`
`42
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Relies on Supplemental Declaration from Dr. Cooperstock
`1) “I understand the concepts that are needed to
`implement the prior art combination….”
`• Cooperstock Supp. Dec. (Ex. 1024), ¶ 13
`2) A PHOSITA could have used another technique in
`Rosener to address latencies in data streams.
`• Modulation of sub-carriers
`• Cooperstock Supp. Dec. (Ex. 1024), ¶¶ 16-17
`
`43
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1) His testimony about the concepts that are
`needed to implement the combination
`• Could not describe how any of the speakers in Rosener
`operate.
`• Did not understand how Rosener’s A/D converter works.
`• Was too embarrassed to speculate about materials for
`flexible connector that is needed to make the Rosener-
`Hankey combination that he proposed.
`
`44
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2) His new testimony that an engineer could make
`the combination (Ex. 1024, ¶ 13)
`• PHOSITA does not need to be an engineer
`according to Cooperstock. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 30)
`
`45
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Cooperstock’s Supplemental Declaration
`
`PHOSITA does need to be an
`engineer according to
`Cooperstock. Ex. 1003, ¶ 30.
`
`Ex. 1024, ¶ 13
`
`46
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3) His testimony about the sub-carrier modulation
`technique in Rosener
`Cooperstock Supplemental Dec., Ex. 1024, ¶¶ 16-17
`
`47
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Cooperstock’s Original Testimony About
`Rosener’s Sub-Carrier Modulation Technique
`Q What is an analog sub-carrier signal?
`A So, yeah, that's, again, terminology that I
`haven't included in my declaration and
`haven't considered. Was not getting into
`details of the, sort of, fundamentals of RF
`communication. These were well-known to
`POSITAs at the time.
`Q And how would a POSITA understand the
`term "analog sub-carrier signal"?
`A So, again, this is not something that I,
`you know, felt the need to consider as to
`the terminology of these detailed RF
`communication parameters.
`It's something, in terms of giving you
`what an understanding of a POSITA would
`be of that term at the time, I would go
`back to literature that was available.
`48
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 40
`
`Ex. 2037, 55-56
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Cooperstock’s Original Testimony About
`Rosener’s Sub-Carrier Modulation Technique
`Q I think you just said it would have been
`well-known to a POSITA, correct?
`A Yes.
`Q But you can't tell me what would have
`been well-known to the POSITA?
`A Well, there's a certain number of years
`that have elapsed since then and
`terminologies, and understanding of the
`terms changed over time.
`So I'd want to -- if you wanted me to give
`you a definition as to what a POSITA would
`have known at the time or of how they
`would have understood the sub-carrier
`terminology at the time, I'd want to go
`back and make sure that -- refreshing my
`memory in terms of what the -- the
`sources, literature, would have defined
`49
`those terms as.
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 40
`
`Ex. 2037, 56-57
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Cooperstock’s Original Testimony About
`Rosener’s Sub-Carrier Modulation Technique
`
`Q. … how does one modulate an RF carrier
`signal with an analog sub-carrier signal?
`A So, once again, these are areas that I've
`not gone into in my report. I wasn't asked
`to consider those questions of RF basics.
`And in order to give you that answer, I'd
`want to take the time to go back to
`references, possibly textbooks that were
`being used at the time frame to get into
`details of RF communication.
`Ex. 2037, 57
`
`50
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 40
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Rosener-Hankey combination does not teach
`that each earphone includes a microphone
`• Rosener does not teach that each earphone
`includes a microphone
`• Hankey does not have a pair of microphones
`
`Ex. 2038, ¶¶ 63-74
`
`51
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Rosener
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, Fig. 9
`
`Rosener, Ex. 1004, ¶ 56
`
`52
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Rosener
`
`• Rosener’s ¶ 56 does not disclose that each
`earphone includes a microphone.
`• Merely teaches that either or both earphones
`may include or be coupled to a data source,
`such as a sensor or microphone.
`• PHOSITA would interpret ¶ 56 as covering many
`possible arrangements, but not conclusively that
`each earphone includes a microphone
`• Ex. 2038, ¶64
`
`53
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Rosener
`Rosener’s ¶ 56 describes Fig. 13, which also does not
`show a microphone in each earphone.
`• Two earphones (“data sinks”), but only one
`microphone (data source 1312).
`• Ex. 2038, ¶¶64-65
`
`54
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Rosener
`• Rosener’s Figure 9 also does not disclose microphone in each
`earphone.
`• Microphone never mentioned in connection with Fig. 9.
`• Cooperstock testified that the data source 922 in Fig. 9 is the
`same as data source 618 in Fig. 6. Ex. 2037, 102-103.
`• Data source 618 is not a microphone. Ex. 1004, ¶ 33.
`• Petitioner’s Reply
`• Cooperstock admitted that his testimony about data source
`618 was a “mistake.” Ex. 1024, ¶18.
`• New testimony is that a POSITA would interpret data source
`922 in Figure 9 as a microphone. Ex. 1024, ¶18.
`
`55
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Cooperstock’s Revised Testimony
`
`Supplemental Declaration (Ex. 1024) cites only ¶ 120 of
`First Declaration (Ex. 1003) as evidence that a POSITA
`would interpret data source 922 as microphone. Ex.
`1024, ¶ 18.
`• Paragraph 120 of First Declaration does not explain
`why a POSITA would interpret data source 922 as a
`microphone.
`• Rosener did not characterize data source 922 as a
`microphone. Ex. 2038, ¶ 66.
`
`56
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`A PHOSITA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO
`INCLUDE A MICROPHONE IN EACH EARPHONE IN
`VIEW OF ROSENER AND HANKEY
`• Adding a microphone to 2nd earphone adds complexity.
`• Two microphones would detect different signals based on
`their different locations.
`• Signals would have different signal strengths.
`• Earphones would need to communicate.
`• Added complexities are beyond skill level of POSITA
`• Especially a POSITA with computer science degree,
`experience with LANs, and no experience designing
`headphones.
`Ex. 2038, ¶¶ 73-74
`
`57
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Dyer Grounds
`
`• Grounds that include Dyer (Ex.
`1006) (end with “(i)” in Petition)
`• Proposed combination “would not
`stay in a user’s ear”
`• Extended cantilever “would
`generate a significant torque at
`the in-ear portion”
`• Torque would cause user
`“discomfort”
`• Likely to “dislodge the
`canalphone from the user’s ear.”
`• Blair Dec. (Ex. 2039), ¶ 20
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Combination
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶97
`
`59
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Witness, Dr. Cooperstock
`
`Patent Owner’s Witness, Mr. Blair
`
`• Designed a single, “fairly simple”
`headphone fifty years ago (Ex.
`2047, 6-7)
`• No patents related to headphones
`(Ex. 2047, 7)
`• $450/hr (Ex. 2037, 10)
`
`• A “significant focus” of his work
`“has been on the design of
`earphones.” (Ex. 2039, ¶ 4)
`• Designed several commercial
`headphone and earphone models
`(Id.)
`• 11 U.S. patents related to
`consumer audio devices (Id., ¶ 5)
`• Employee of Koss Corp. (Id., ¶ 21)
`• Petitioner did not depose Mr. Blair.
`
`60
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner relies on “master/slave” configuration in Haupt (Ex. 1020)
`• “Master” earphones correspond to digital audio player (DAP) of
`claims
`• “Master” earphones transmit audio files to “slave” earphones
`• Haupt’s earphones have “control buttons” to select audio files to
`download
`Pet., 63-65
`
`62
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`• Haupt’s servers (PS and OS) track IP addresses of
`connected devices.
`• “Interrupt” connections with a device that is not
`the “playback device.” Ex. 1020, 8.
`Haupt’s server will “interrupt” connection
`with “slave” device
`
`63
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`64
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Evidence about Firmware
`• Software that provides low-level control for a device’s
`specific hardware. (Ex. 2038, ¶ 76)
`• Needs to be upgraded to fix bug and/or add new
`features. (Id., ¶67)
`• If device loses power during firmware upgrade, the
`device can become a “brick.” (Id.)
`
`65
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Claim 14 Would Not Have Been Obvious
`• Rosener does not disclose firmware upgrades.
`• Hankey only discloses firmware upgrades when
`earpiece is powered by external power supply. Ex.
`1005, ¶¶182-188.
`• Petitioner did not explain how Rosener’s earphones
`would be modified to work with Hankey’s external
`power supply.
`→ Claim 14 would not have been obvious to a POSITA
`→ Especially a Baseline POSITA
`Ex. 2038, ¶¶ 75-78
`
`66
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Claim 14 Would Not Have Been Obvious
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Arguments
`• Rosener lacks any disclosure indicating
`that battery would be insufficient for
`firmware upgrade.
`
`• Hankey’s external power source could
`be used.
`
`• Conditional or incremental firmware
`upgrades
`
`• Patent Owner importing SoC limitation
`into claim
`
`Illogical because Rosener does
`not disclose firmware upgrades
`
`No evidence that device is On
`while being charged
`No relied-upon references teach
`this
`Not so. SoC teaching in ‘982
`Patent teaches POSITA a way to
`realize claim 14
`
`68
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`69
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner asserts would have been obvious over Rosener,
`Hankey (Dyer) and Paulson
`• Rosener discloses microphone
`• Would have been obvious to use Paulson’s “push-to-talk”
`functionality
`
`70
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Claim 15 Would Not Have Been Obvious
`• Paulson’s switch 330 is mechanical
`switch that interrupts current on
`microphone wires 344, 345. Ex.
`2038, ¶ 85.
`• Petitioner did not explain how
`Paulson’s mechanical switch would
`be implemented in Rosener’s
`small form factor earphones.
`• Would not have been obvious to a
`POSITA.
`• Especially one with computer
`science degree and no
`experience with headphones.
`Ex. 2038, ¶ 87.
`
`Paulson, Ex. 1010, Fig. 3
`
`71
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Claim 15 Would Not Have Been Obvious
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Arguments
`• “POSITA would have simply incorporated
`a button that is appropriately-sized for
`small earphones ….”
`
`• POSITA “would leverage Paulson’s
`teachings on how to control the
`microphone in the Rosener-Hankey
`earphone.” Reply, 25.
`
`• POSITA would “implement this idea by
`using a button that would regulate the
`current (or power) flowing to or out of
`the microphone through the wires
`connected to the microphone.”
`
`Reply, 25.
`
`New Argument
`
`• Petition argued that POSITA
`would have included “the switch
`taught in Paulson….”
`• Pet. 73; Ex. 1003, ¶ 76
`
`Cooperstock Supp. Declaration
`Insufficient
`
`• No corroboration that POSITA
`would have simply incorporated
`button suitable for small
`earphones. See Ex. 1024, ¶ 54
`
`73
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`74
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner asserts would have been obvious over Rosener and
`Hankey (Dyer)
`• Petitioner relies on “signal conditioning circuit 916” in
`Figure 9 of Rosener. Pet. 56-57; Ex. 1003, ¶ 132.
`
`75
`
`

`Claimed Digital Signal Processor
`Digital signal processor (DSP)
`• Improves audio signal prior to
`delivery to a speaker
`• Does not drive speaker
`• Often embodied as a single chip
`• Integrated circuit
`• System-on-a-chip (SoC)
`Ex. 2035, ¶91-95
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 3
`
`76
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Rosener’s Signal Conditioning Circuit 916
`• Signal conditioning circuit 916
`provides:
`• “digital-to-analog conversion,
`filtering, amplification, and/or
`other signal processing
`functions to ensure that the
`processed data is in a form
`suitable to drive the data sink
`218” (Ex. 1004, ¶49)
`• Data sink 218 is speaker
`• Signal conditioning circuit is a digital-
`to-analog converter (DAC) that
`drives the speaker
`Ex. 2038, ¶90
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶132
`
`77
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Rosener (Ex. 1004)
`
`“[0049] … the processed data from the baseband processor 914 may be
`coupled to a signal conditioning circuit 916 to provide digital-to-analog
`conversion, filtering, amplification, and/or other signal processing
`functions, to ensure that the processed data is in a form suitable to drive
`the data sink 918.”
`78
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Claims 19-20 Would Not Have Been Obvious
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Arguments
`• Rosener ¶ 49 mentions filtering and
`amplification.
`
`No evidence that the filtering or
`amplification is digital, or that, if
`digital, they provide a sound quality
`enhancement. Ex. 2047, 10.
`
`• Rosener discloses other signal
`conditioning circuits that are not DACs.
`
`• Patent Owner is importing “single chip”
`limitation
`Reply, 26-29.
`
`All are DACs or ADCs. Ex. 1004, ¶¶44,
`47, 49, 50
`Not so. Rosener’s “signal conditioning
`circuit” is not a processor. Ex. 2038,
`¶¶90-97.
`
`80
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`81
`
`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Commercial Success of AirPods and AirPods
`Pro Headphones Confirms Non-Obviousness
`
`• AirPods and AirPods Pros, when paired
`with iPhone, possess all elements of claim
`1.
`• Ex. 1014, 1003-1014, 1041-1052.
`• Petitioner instructs customers to pair
`AirPods with iPhone.
`• Ex. 2045; Ex. 1014 at 1014 & 1052.
`• Estimated $35 b

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Or .

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

Supplemental Search

Search for PTAB Motions

PTAB Analytics

TTAB Analytics

Basic Search

Filters

Party Search

Advanced

Selected Courts

Recently Selected Courts

Find PTAB Decisions

PTAB Analytics

Special PTAB Alerts

Orange Book

Directly Search Federal Courts

Search Trademark ...

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

Still Working On It

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

This document could not be displayed.

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.

One Moment Please

Your document is on its way!

Sealed Document

We are redirecting youto a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

We are unable to display this document.

STEP 2 of 2

Choose your membership type

Flat-Fee

Pay-As-You-Go

Add your payment information

Login or Join

Enter your corporate Email

Thousands of your peers are saving time and gaining a competitive advantage with Docket Alarm.

Join Docket Alarm to perform smarter legal research.

Download this document and millions of others instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join Docket Alarm and start performing smarter legal research.

Start tracking this docket instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join thousands of your peers and start performing smarter legal research.

STEP 1 of 2

Millions of Documents | 15 Seconds to Signup

Hi !

Welcome to Docket Alarm

Welcome to Docket Alarm!

Explore Litigation Insights andManage Your Cases

Reset Password

What is PACER?

Why do I need it?

What will I be charged?

Do other courts have fees?

Basic Free Access

Welcome

Thank you

Check Firm Account

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Explore Litigation Insights and
Manage Your Cases