Petitioner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`Apple Inc. (Petitioner)
`v.
`Koss Corporation (Patent Owner)
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00381
`U.S. Patent No. 10,491,982
`
`Before Hon. David C. McKone, Gregg I. Anderson, and Norman H. Beamer
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1031
`Apple v. Koss
`IPR2021-00381
`
`1
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. (Petitioner)
`v.
`Koss Corporation (Patent Owner)
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00381
`U.S. Patent No. 10,491,982
`
`Before Hon. David C. McKone, Gregg I. Anderson, and Norman H. Beamer
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1031
`Apple v. Koss
`IPR2021-00381
`
`1
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`The ’982 Patent
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`Discussion of Key Topics
`1 - A POSITA Would Have Had Reasonable Expectation of Success In Combining
`the Prior Art (Claim 1)
`2 - The Record Evidence Teaches A “Remote Network Server” In Communication
`With Both an Earphone And a Mobile Digital Audio Player (Claim 4)
`3 - Koss’s Purported Concerns of Firmware Upgrade Functionality Are Misplaced
`(Claim 14)
`4 - The Record Evidence Teaches Microphone Activation By a User (Claim 15)
`
`5 - Rosener’s Signal Conditioning Circuit 916 Would Have Rendered Obvious a
`“Digital Signal Processor” (Claims 19 and 20)
`6 - Koss has not Established Non-obviousness Based on Commercial Success
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`2
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`Obviousness Ground
`
`Rosener and Hankey 1(A) /
`Rosener, Hankey, and Dyer 1(A)(i)
`Rosener, Hankey, and Haupt 1(B) /
`Rosener, Hankey, Dyer, and Haupt 1(B)(i)
`Rosener, Hankey, and Price 1(C) /
`Rosener, Hankey, Dyer, and Price (C)(i)
`Rosener, Hankey, and Paulson 1(D) /
`Rosener, Hankey, Dyer, and Paulson 1(D)(i)
`Rosener, Hankey, and Huddart 1(E) / Rosener,
`Hankey, Dyer, and Huddart 1(E)(i)
`Rosener, Hankey, Huddart, and Vanderelli 1(F) /
`Rosener, Hankey, Dyer, Huddart, and Vanderelli 1(F)(i)
`
`* Independent claims noted in red
`* Grounds in dispute are noted in bolded format
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1, 2, 18, 19, 20
`
`3, 4, 5
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16, 17
`
`17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`3
`
`
`
`The ’982 Patent
`
`“The 982 patent relates to wireless earphones that receive streaming audio data over a
`network.”
`
`Petition (citing APPLE-1001, 2:7-23
`
`“As shown in [FIG.] 1B, the earphone 10 may
`comprise a body 12. The body 12 may
`comprise an ear canal portion 14.”
`
`APPLE-1001 at 3:24-27, Fig. 1B
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`4
`
`
`
`The ’982 Patent
`
`“FIG. 3 is a block diagram of the earphone 10.”
`
`“In various embodiments, the transceiver circuit 100 may
`be implemented as a single integrated circuit (IC), such
`as a system-on-chip (SoC)…. Inalternative
`embodiments, however, the components of the
`transceiver circuit 100 could be realized with two or more
`discrete ICs or other components, such as separate ICs
`for the processors, memory, and RF (e.g., Wi-Fi) module,
`for example.”
`
`APPLE-1001 at 6:34-41; 6:49-59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`APPLE-1001 at FIG. 3
`
`5
`
`
`
`Six Topics For Discussion
`
`1. A POSITA Would Have Had Reasonable Expectation of Success In Combining the Prior Art
`
`2. The Record Evidence Teaches A “Remote Network Server” In Communication With Both an
`Earphone And a Mobile Digital Audio Player (Claim 4)
`
`3. Koss’s Purported Concerns of Firmware Upgrade Functionality Are Misplaced (Claim 14)
`
`4. The Record Evidence Teaches Microphone Activation By a User (Claim 15)
`
`5. Rosener’s Signal Conditioning Circuit 916 Would Have Rendered Obvious a “Digital Signal
`Processor” (Claims 19 and 20)
`
`6. Koss has not Established Non-obviousness Based on Commercial Success
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`6
`
`
`
`Six Topics For Discussion
`
`1. A POSITA Would Have Had Reasonable Expectation of Success In Combining the Prior
`Art (Claim 1)
`
`2. The Record Evidence Teaches A “Remote Network Server” In Communication With Both an
`Earphone And a Mobile Digital Audio Player (Claim 4)
`
`3. Koss’s Purported Concerns of Firmware Upgrade Functionality Are Misplaced (Claim 14)
`
`4. The Record Evidence Teaches Microphone Activation By a User (Claim 15)
`
`5. Rosener’s Signal Conditioning Circuit 916 Would Have Rendered Obvious a “Digital Signal
`Processor” (Claims 19 and 20)
`
`6. Koss has not Established Non-obviousness Based on Commercial Success
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`7
`
`
`
`The’982 Patent – Claim 1
`
`1.
`
`A system comprising:
`headphones comprising a pair of first and second wireless earphones to be worn simultaneously by a user,
`wherein the first and second earphones are separate such that when the headphones are worn by the user, the first and
`second earphones are not physically connected, wherein each of the first and second earphones comprises:
`a body portion that comprises:
`a wireless communication circuit for receiving and transmitting wireless signals;
`a processor circuit in communication with the wireless communication circuit; and
`an ear canal portion that is inserted into an ear of the user when worn by the user; and
`at least one acoustic transducer connected to the processor circuit; and
`an elongated portion that extends away from the body portion such that the elongated portion extends
`downwardly when the ear canal portion is inserted in the ear of the user;
`a microphone connected to the processor circuit and for picking up utterances of a user of the headphones;
`an antenna connected to the wireless communication circuit; and
`a rechargeable power source; and
`a mobile, digital audio player that stores digital audio content and that comprises a wireless transceiver for
`transmitting digital audio content to the headphones via Bluetooth wireless communication links, such that each
`earphone receives and plays audio content received wirelessly via the Bluetooth wireless communication links from the
`mobile, digital audio player.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`8
`
`
`
`Overview of Rosener and Hankey
`
`“FIG. 5 of Rosener depicts its headset as including two small, wireless
`compact earphones 502, 504, each of which is physically and electrically
`separated from the other and is independently in communication with an
`external audio device (or ‘audio source’) over its own wireless
`communication link.”
`
`Petition at 24-25
`(citing to Cooperstock Decl. at 44; Rosener, [0010-11])
`
`Petition at 27 (Rosener, FIG. 5)
`
`“Rosener, however, is silent as to the implementation details of arranging Rosener’s electrical
`components within the compact form factor of each of the earphones 502, 504.”
`
`“To implement such earphones, therefore, a POSITA would have sought disclosures of small
`form factors for use in earphones and techniques for arranging electrical components
`within those earpieces.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`Petition at 25-26
`(citing to Cooperstock Decl. at 45)
`
`9
`
`
`
`Overview of Rosener and Hankey
`
`“Hankey discloses a compact earpiece capable of
`communicating with external audio devices wirelessly.”
`
`“Hankey provides techniques to package electronics
`within ‘a small compact unit’ to alleviate the size and
`shape hassles of conventional headsets. … Hankey’s
`techniques include dividing the earpiece’s electrical
`assemblies into small groups of electrical components
`and connecting those small groups to each other by
`flexible connectors.”
`
`Petition at 26 (citing to Cooperstock Decl. at 46; Hankey [0011])
`
`Hankey (APPLE-1005), FIG. 10A
`(cited in Petition at 27)
`
`Hankey (APPLE-1005), FIG. 5
`(cited in Petition at 22)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`10
`
`
`
`Overview of Rosener and Hankey
`
`Hankey:
`“Small compact headsets also have limited
`internal volume for placing internal
`components. Therefore [in] one aspect of the
`invention … the electronics that would
`normally be embodied on a single large circuit
`board may be divided/separated out and
`placed on multiple smaller circuit boards,
`each of which can be positioned at different
`locations within the headset. Flexible wires
`and possibly wireless protocols can be used to
`operatively couple the electronics and/or
`discrete circuit boards together.”
`Hankey (APPLE-1005) at [0098] (cited in Petition at 26)
`
`“[Electronic components are] mounted on the
`earbud flexible circuit board 522 [that] can
`fold upon itself or bend. Such flexibility may
`allow earbud flexible circuit board 522 to fit in
`smaller or less traditionally-shaped earbuds.
`Hankey (APPLE-1005) at [0130] (cited in Petition at 22)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Hankey (APPLE-1005), FIGs. 1, 20A-20C (cited in Petition at 27)
`
`11
`
`11
`
`
`
`Rosener-Hankey Combination
`
`Rosener
`
`Hankey
`
`Rosener, FIG. 5 (cited in Petition at 27)
`
`Hankey, FIG. 10A (cited in Petition at 27)
`
`Cooperstock:
`“Being aware of Hankey’s techniques of implementing a small compact earpiece, a POSITA
`would have understood that one way to implement each of Rosener’s earphones 502, 504
`would be to divide [each of the earphones] into two portions[:] a top part of the earphone
`and the other portion could be ‘a longitudinal member’ extending away from the top
`portion.”
`
`Cooperstock Decl. (APPLE-1003) at 47 (cited in Petition at 26-27)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`12
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Able To Implement Rosener’s Design On
`Hankey’s Flexible Circuit Board
`
`PO Sur-Reply
`“Cooperstock could not
`identify a suitable material
`for the flexible electrical
`connector in the proposed
`combination (KOSS-2037,
`67:1-68:4), further
`demonstrating that a
`POSITA would not have a
`reasonable expectation of
`achieving the [Rosener-
`Hankey] combination.”
`
`Sur-Reply at 9
`
`’982 Patent
`“In various embodiments, the transceiver circuit 100 may be
`implemented as a single integrated circuit (IC), such as a
`system-on-chip (SoC)…. Inalternative embodiments, however,
`the components of the transceiver circuit 100 could be
`realized with two or more discrete ICs or other
`components, such as separate ICs for the processors,
`memory, and RF (e.g., Wi-Fi) module, for example.”
`APPLE-1001 at 6:49-59
`
`Petitioner Reply
`“…given prevalence of materials for flexible electrical
`connectors were well-known by the Critical Date, and thus,
`a POSITA could have identified a suitable material without
`invention. [For example, see] APPLE-1027, APPLE-1028, and
`APPLE-1029 as prior art references disclosing exemplary
`materials).”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply at 12 (citing to Cooperstock Suppl. Decl. at 21)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`13
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Able To Implement Rosener’s Design On
`Hankey’s Flexible Circuit Board
`
`PO Sur-Reply
`“Cooperstock could not identify a
`suitable material for the flexible
`electrical connector in the
`proposed combination (KOSS-2037,
`67:1-68:4), further demonstrating
`that a POSITA would not have a
`reasonable expectation of achieving
`the [Rosener-Hankey] combination.”
`Sur-Reply at 9
`
`Petitioner Reply
`“a POSITA would not need to know about the
`underlying materials for[] building a circuit board in
`order to utilize [the circuit board].
`…A POSITA could simply select from those
`commercially available flexible circuit boards
`without needing to know the underlying material used
`in fabricating flexible circuit boards when implementing
`those boards in the Rosener-Hankey combination
`because the properties and characteristics of the
`boards were public knowledge at the Critical Date.
`
`Petitioner Reply at 12 (citing to Cooperstock’s Supp. Decl. at 21)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`14
`
`
`
`The Rosener-Hankey Combination Renders The Transducer Obvious
`(Claim 1)
`1.
`A system comprising:
`headphones comprising a pair of first and second wireless earphones to be worn simultaneously by a user, wherein
`the first and second earphones are separate such that when the headphones are worn by the user, the first and second
`earphones are not physically connected, wherein each of the first and second earphones comprises:
`a body portion that comprises:
`a wireless communication circuit for receiving and transmitting wireless signals;
`a processor circuit in communication with the wireless communication circuit; and
`an ear canal portion that is inserted into an ear of the user when worn by the user; and
`at least one acoustic transducer connected to the processor circuit; and
`an elongated portion that extends away from the body portion such that the elongated portion extends
`downwardly when the ear canal portion is inserted in the ear of the user;
`a microphone connected to the processor circuit and for picking up utterances of a user of the headphones;
`an antenna connected to the wireless communication circuit; and
`a rechargeable power source; and
`a mobile, digital audio player that stores digital audio content and that comprises a wireless transceiver for
`transmitting digital audio content to the headphones via Bluetooth wireless communication links, such that each earphone
`receives and plays audio content received wirelessly via the Bluetooth wireless communication links from the mobile,
`digital audio player.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`15
`
`
`
`A POSTIA Would Have Been Able to Select A Proper Transducer For
`Use In a Rosener-Hankey Combination
`
`Petition
`Rosener discloses that each of its
`earphones has a speaker, which is an
`acoustic transducer.
`
`Petition at 45 (citing to Rosener [0002], [0030])
`
`POR
`Cooperstock “could not explain how the
`speaker elements disclosed in Rosener
`operate or even how they compare to one
`another.”
`
`POR at 15-16
`
`Rosener:
`“The speaker may comprise, for example, a magnetic
`element attached to a voice-coil-actuated diaphragm, an
`electrostatically charged diaphragm, a balanced armature
`driver, or a combination of one or more of these
`transducer elements.”
`
`Rosener [0030] (cited in Petition at 45)
`
`Petitioner Reply
`“… experts of both parties have testified that the
`properties, characteristics, and use of audio
`transducers (the transducer types disclosed in
`Rosener) were all well-known by the Critical Date.”
`Petitioner’s Reply at 10 (citing to
`Cooperstock’s Depo. Transcript (KOSS-2037) 39:6-17, and
`McAlexander’s Depo. Transcript (APPLE-1025) at 192:5-194:23)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`16
`
`
`
`A POSTIA Would Have Been Able to Select A Proper Transducer For
`Use In a Rosener-Hankey Combination
`POR
`Petitioner’s Reply
`“The POSITA would not necessarily have any skills
`“the ‘982 Patent itself contains no disclosure of
`or knowledge specific to designing the acoustic
`any details of how to choose an acoustic
`transducer for a wireless earphone, [and] fitting all of
`transducer, [or] arrange components.”
`the components into a small form factor earphone.”
`Petitioner Reply at 8-9 (see also id. at 10)
`POR at 6-7
`’982 Patent
`“the earphone 10 may
`comprise…one or more acoustic
`transducers 106 (e.g., speakers)
`[that] may be housed within the
`body 12 of the earphone 10 (see
`FIG. 1).”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE-1001 at 6:34-44, FIGs. 1B and 3
`
`17
`
`17
`
`
`
`Obvious Transducer in Claim 1
`
`1.
`
`A system comprising:
`headphones comprising a pair of first and second wireless earphones to be worn simultaneously by a user, wherein
`the first and second earphones are separate such that when the headphones are worn by the user, the first and second
`earphones are not physically connected, wherein each of the first and second earphones comprises:
`a body portion that comprises:
`a wireless communication circuit for receiving and transmitting wireless signals;
`a processor circuit in communication with the wireless communication circuit; and
`an ear canal portion that is inserted into an ear of the user when worn by the user; and
`at least one acoustic transducer connected to the processor circuit; and
`an elongated portion that extends away from the body portion such that the elongated portion extends
`downwardly when the ear canal portion is inserted in the ear of the user;
`a microphone connected to the processor circuit and for picking up utterances of a user of the headphones;
`an antenna connected to the wireless communication circuit; and
`a rechargeable power source; and
`a mobile, digital audio player that stores digital audio content and that comprises a wireless transceiver for
`transmitting digital audio content to the headphones via Bluetooth wireless communication links, such that each earphone
`receives and plays audio content received wirelessly via the Bluetooth wireless communication links from the mobile,
`digital audio player.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`18
`
`
`
`Rosener Discloses Data Source 922 Is A Microphone/Sensor In An
`Earphone
`
`“Rosener contemplates an arrangement in which each of receivers…of earphones 502, 504 is replaced by a transceiver
`900 to thereby allow the earphone to both receive data…and transmit data received from a data source 922 (e.g., a
`microphone).”
`
`Cooperstock’s Suppl. Decl. (APPLE-1024) at 18-19 (cited in Petitioner Reply at 11)
`
`“Indeed, a POSITA would have understood what each
`term means in the context of the functions that the
`corresponding components perform. …
`Considering that data source 922…provides an input
`that is ultimately transmitted out of the earphone via
`antenna 906, a POSITA would have understood that
`data source 922 is the same as the
`microphone/sensor-type data source that Rosener
`contemplates for allowing data to be sent back to an
`external [device].”
`Cooperstock’s Suppl. Decl. (APPLE-1047) at 20 (cited in Petitioner’s Reply at 12)
`McAlexander’s Testimony:
`922 can be either a sensor or a
`Q
`microphone, correct?
`A
`It can be.
`McAlexander’s Depo. Transcript (APPLE-1025) at 238:23-239:6
`(cited in Petitioner’s Reply at 14)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`“Processor Circuit”
`
`“Microphone”
`
`Petition at 48-49 (Rosener, FIG. 9)
`
`19
`
`19
`
`
`
`Rosener-Hankey Combination Teaches a Microphone In Each of the
`Earphones
`“Rosener contemplates an arrangement in which each of receivers…of earphones 502, 504 is replaced by a
`transceiver 900 to thereby allow the earphone to both receive data…and transmit data received from a data source 922
`(e.g., a microphone).”
`
`“When replacing the receivers…with transceiver 900,
`a POSITA would have understood that the rest of
`circuitries shown in FIG. 9 (including data source 922)
`could be used for implementing each of the
`earphones 502, 504, resulting in including data
`source 922 in each of the earphones.”
`Petitioner’s Reply at 14 (citing Cooperstock’s Suppl. Decl. at 26)
`
`Rosener:
`“either or both the first and second data sinks of
`the various embodiments may include (or be
`coupled to) a data source such as, for example,
`a sensor or a microphone to allow a data to be
`sent back to an external electronic device.”
`Rosener, [0056])(cited at Petitioner’s Reply at 13)
`
`Cooperstock’s Suppl. Decl. (APPLE-1024) at 18-19 (cited in Petitioner Reply at 11)
`
`“Processor Circuit”
`
`“Microphone”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition at 48-49 (Rosener, FIG. 9)
`
`20
`
`20
`
`
`
`Rosener-Hankey Combination Teaches a Microphone In Each of the
`Earphones
`
`POR
`
`Patent Owner Response, 31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`21
`
`
`
`Rosener Teaches Multiple Techniques That Allow The Two Earphones
`Function Independently
`
`In Rosener, “aside from each earphone
`implementing additional latency compensation
`processing to enable stereo play when both
`earphones are being simultaneously used, each
`earphone is otherwise a standalone device that
`processes data that it independently receives
`from an audio source without requiring any
`knowledge as to whether the other earphone is
`even being used by a user at the same time.
`Cooperstock’s Decl. (APPLE-1003) at 49
`(cited in Petition at 28; citing to Rosener 39-42)
`
`Rosener:
`“Another way to synchronize the first and second data streams (i.e., reduce the differential latency of
`the first and second data streams) is … by, for example, modulating each of the RF carrier signals
`associated with the first and second RF transmitters 610, 614 with analog subcarrier signals,
`which are synchronized with the data source sample clock used at the transmitting end of the system
`600. The subcarrier signals can be detected by the respective first and second RF receivers
`604, 608 and converted into digital clocks which can drive the A/D converters of the first and second
`RF receivers 604, 608.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Rosener at FIG. 6 (Annotated)
`(cited in Petition at 52)
`
`Rosener (APPLE-1004) at [0040]
`(cited in Petition at 21, Petitioner’s
`Reply at 10-11)
`
`22
`
`22
`
`
`
`The POSITA Would Have Skills and Knowledge In Combining Prior Art
`
`Petitioner Reply
`“the Patent Owner’s allegedly ‘important aspects’
`are merely implementation details for
`conventional concepts that a POSITA would
`have understood how to implement with a
`reasonable expectation of success and without
`any undue experimentation.”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply at 9
`(citing Cooperstock’s Suppl. Decl. at 13)
`
`Sur-Reply
`“… modify Rosener’s headphones by
`condensing all of its components into a
`compact form factor … would be non-
`obvious to a POSITA because
`[Cooperstock], as a person with skills
`superior to a POSITA … could not explain
`important aspects of the relied upon
`prior art including: how Rosener’s
`transducer operates; how Rosener’s A/D
`converter and data buffer coordinate; and
`what Hankey’s flexible circuit would be
`made of in order to make the combination
`proposed by Cooperstock. KOSS-2037,
`36-43 (transducers), 45-61 (data buffer),
`67-68 (material for flexible circuit board).”
`Sur-reply at 1-2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`23
`
`
`
`The POSITA Would Have Skills and Knowledge In Combining Prior Art
`
`Cooperstock Deposition
`“… a POSITA would gain the knowledge in []
`their academic background preparing them to
`work in the wireless sector and wireless
`communication,” and “through their industry
`experience, they would gain relevant know-
`how that [let them design wireless
`earphones].”
`
`KOSS-2037 at 33:5-16 (cited in Petitioner Reply at 8)
`
`PO Sur-reply
`“… Cooperstock’s testimony that a POSITA would
`have to ‘gain’ the relevant skills is a tacit admission
`that the POSITA would not have the relevant skills
`and that, therefore, the proposed combinations
`would not have been obvious to the POSITA.”
`“Cooperstock’s testimony that the POSITA ‘would
`gain’ the requisite knowledge is undercut by, and
`inconsistent with, other testimony that he gave about
`what the POSITA would learn through his/her
`experience.”
`
`Sur-Reply at 4-5
`
`Cooperstock Supplemental Decl.
`“An engineer interested in seeking to implement Rosener and Hankey earphones would have available many
`reference[s] to describe the embodiments disclosed in those references, for example, by going through user
`manuals of well-known transceivers, studying about and experimenting with the alternative techniques that Rosener
`disclosed, and (if needed) learning about details of flexible circuit board that were available in the market.”
`APPLE-1024 at 13 (cited in Petitioner Reply at 9)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`24
`
`
`
`Obvious Transducer in Claim 1
`
`1.
`
`A system comprising:
`headphones comprising a pair of first and second wireless earphones to be worn simultaneously by a user, wherein
`the first and second earphones are separate such that when the headphones are worn by the user, the first and second
`earphones are not physically connected, wherein each of the first and second earphones comprises:
`a body portion that comprises:
`a wireless communication circuit for receiving and transmitting wireless signals;
`a processor circuit in communication with the wireless communication circuit; and
`an ear canal portion that is inserted into an ear of the user when worn by the user; and
`at least one acoustic transducer connected to the processor circuit; and
`an elongated portion that extends away from the body portion such that the elongated portion extends
`downwardly when the ear canal portion is inserted in the ear of the user;
`a microphone connected to the processor circuit and for picking up utterances of a user of the headphones;
`an antenna connected to the wireless communication circuit; and
`a rechargeable power source; and
`a mobile, digital audio player that stores digital audio content and that comprises a wireless transceiver for
`transmitting digital audio content to the headphones via Bluetooth wireless communication links, such that each earphone
`receives and plays audio content received wirelessly via the Bluetooth wireless communication links from the mobile,
`digital audio player.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`25
`
`
`
`Rosener-Hankey Combination Teaches Canalphones
`
`Rosener:
`“Each of the first and second earphones 502,
`504 may be in the form of a canalphone, which
`can be fitted within the ear canal of the user’s
`ear.”
`
`Rosener (APPLE-1004) at [0030]
`(cited in Petition at 29)
`
`Rosener, FIG. 5 (cited in Petition at 27)
`
`The Institution Decision:
`“We find Rosener alone sufficiently shows limitation 1.c.i.C, i.e., insertion of
`a canalphone into a user’s ear…. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we
`do not discuss the further teachings of Dyer for grounds “1(A)(i)–1(F)(i). …
`On this record Petitioner has sufficiently shown Dyer teaches the limitation and
`provides reasons for combining Dyer with Rosener and Hankey.”
`
`Institution Decision at 35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`26
`
`
`
`Rosener-Hankey-Dyer Combination
`
`Dyer:
`
`“Dyer discloses implementation details of a
`‘canalphone’ type earphone (or simply
`“canalphone”) including an eartip that fits within a
`user’s ear canal.”
`
`Petition at 23-24 (citing to
`Dyer 3:4-6, 4:37-39, and Cooperstock Decl. at 52-53)
`“Canalphone 100 includes a ‘[s]ound delivery
`member 111 [that] is designed to fit within the outer
`ear canal of the user.’…Sound delivery member
`111 is attached to an earphone enclosure
`115.…Earphone enclosure 115 protects ‘any
`required earphone circuitry’ of canalphone 100 from
`damage.”
`
`Cooperstock Decl. at 53 (cited in Petition at 23-24)
`
`Dyer, FIG. 1 (cited in Petition at 23-24))
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`27
`
`
`
`Rosener-Hankey-Dyer Combination
`Rosener:
`“Each of the first and second earphones 502, 504 may
`be in the form of a canalphone, which can be fitted
`within the ear canal of the user’s ear.”
`Rosener, [0030] (cited in Petition at 29)
`Hankey:
`
`An Example Rosener-Hankey- Dyer
`Canalphone
`
`Hankey, FIG. 10A
`(cited in Petition at 27)
`
`Dyer:
`
`Part of Dyer’s canalphone shown in FIG. 1 of Dyer
`(cited in Petition at 31)
`
`Cooperstock Decl. at 56 (cited in Petition at 29-31)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`28
`
`
`
`Blair Declaration Does Not Disturb The Rosener-Hankey-Dyer
`Combination
`
`POR
`“As explained in the Declaration
`of Nicholas S. Blair, KOSS-2039,
`the ‘Rosener-Hankey-Dyer
`canalphone would not stay in a
`user’s ear’ because the
`‘canalphone does not include an
`adequate securing mechanism,
`and the ‘body portion’ thereof
`forms an extended cantilevered
`arm between the in-ear portion of
`the canalphone and the primary
`housing 1010, which would
`generate a significant torque at
`the in-ear portion from the offset
`weight of the primary housing.’
`POR at 35
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`“Blair Declaration…represents the testimony of an
`interested declarant. Mr. Blair is the Director of Products
`at KOSS—a party to this proceeding.”
`
`Legal Principle
`“adding a reader [is for]
`providing an added benefit and
`simplified use of the toy for the
`child in order to increase its
`marketability[, and] presents no
`evidence that the inclusion of a
`reader in this type of device
`was uniquely challenging or
`difficult for one of ordinary
`skill in the art.
`
`Petitioner Reply at 14-15
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`“Blair Declaration only asserts
`that the Rosener-Hankey-Dyer
`canalphone would not be an
`ideal design. A POSITA at least
`would have contemplated the
`proposed design as an
`operable embodiment, even if
`it is inferior to other designs
`regarding how it fits or how
`long it stays in user’s ear.”
`
`Leapfrog Enters, 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`(cited in Petitioner Reply at 18)
`
`Petitioner Reply at 18
`(citing to Cooperstock Suppl. Decl. at 37-38)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`29
`
`
`
`Blair Declaration Does Not Disturb The Rosener-Hankey-Dyer
`Combination
`
`Blair Declaration makes several assumptions relating to how the earphone in each
`of Rosener and Hankey is secured in a user’s ear without any relevant support
`from either of these:
`• a POSITA could not have designed a combination canalphone that would benefit from both
`a similar securing mechanism as purported for Hankey’s earbud—i.e., being secured in the
`ear concha—and the securing mechanism purported for Dyer’s canalphone—i.e., being
`secured in the ear canal;
`“the bulbous outer earphone enclosure 115 would not fit in the user’s ear”;
`•
`“the enclosure 115 would prevent eartip 121 from sufficiently penetrating the ear canal”;
`•
`• a POSITA would not have been motivated to design the sub-enclosure 115 to imitate
`Hankey’s earbud;
`“the body portion … would generate a significant torque at the in-ear portion from the offset
`weight of the primary housing;”
`the Rosener-Hankey-Dyer’s straight body “does not account for the ear canal’s geometry,”
`even though the canalphone shown in FIG. 1B of the ’982 patent is also straight.
`
`•
`
`“KSR instructs that the
`obviousness inquiry
`requires a ‘flexible
`approach,’ recognizing that
`‘[a] person of ordinary skill
`is also a person of ordinary
`creativity, not an
`automaton.’”
`Petitioner Reply at 16-17
`(citing to ClassCo, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`•
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`Petitioner Reply at 15-17
`(citing to Blair Decl. at 12-20, and Cooperstock Suppl. Decl. at 29-36)
`
`30
`
`
`
`Six Topics For Discussion
`
`1. A POSITA Would Have Had Reasonable Expectation of Success In Combining the Prior Art
`
`2. The Record Evidence Teaches A “Remote Network Server” In Communication With
`Both an Earphone And a Mobile Digital Audio Player (Claim 4)
`
`3. Koss’s Purported Concerns of Firmware Upgrade Functionality Are Misplaced (Claim 14)
`
`4. The Record Evidence Teaches Microphone Activation By a User (Claim 15)
`
`5. Rosener’s Signal Conditioning Circuit 916 Would Have Rendered Obvious a “Digital Signal
`Processor” (Claims 19 and 20)
`
`6. Koss has not Established Non-obviousness Based on Commercial Success
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`31
`
`
`
`The ’982 Patent – Claim 4
`
`The system of claim 1, wherein the processor
`4.
`circuit of the first earphone is for, upon activation of a
`user control of the headphones, initiating
`transmission of a request to a remote network
`server that is remote from the mobile, digital audio
`player and in communication with the mobile,
`digital audio player via a data communication
`network.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`32
`
`
`
`Two Operational Modes for Receiving Audio
`
`“Haupt’s headphone includes a ‘transmitter/receiver unit' that has
`both a WLAN interface and a Bluetooth interface.…
`
`a POSITA would have been motivated to implement Haupt’s
`transmitter/receiver unit in Rosener-Hankey/Rosener-Hankey-
`Dyer canalphone so that the canalphone can log on to a
`wireless network using an IP address assigned to the canalphone
`and directly receive audio data from a remote network
`server…. The canalphone can then play audio files transferred
`from the server or ‘can be used for listening to the radio live on
`the internet.’”
`
`Petition at 61-62
`(citing to Haupt (APPLE-1020) 18-22, and
`to Cooperstock Decl.(APPLE-1003) at 62, 136-138)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`33
`
`
`
`Two Operational Modes: Streaming Directly From Remote Server OS
`
`“Similarly, a POSITA would have
`recognized using Haupt’s
`transceiver/receiver unit in a
`Rosener-Hankey-Haupt/Rosener-
`Hankey-Dyer-Haupt canalphone
`would allow the canalphone to play
`audio files transferred from the
`server or ‘[could] be used for
`listening to the radio live on the
`internet,’ (‘streamed from a remote
`network server’)”
`
`Petition at 62-63
`(citing to Haupt (APPLE-1030) at 10, 22, and
`to Cooperstock Decl. (APPLE-1003) at 139)
`
`Petition at 63
`(citing to Cooperstock Decl. at 140-143)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`34
`
`
`
`Two Operational Modes: Sharing Audio Between Headphones
`
`“As Haupt notes the master ‘perform[s]
`as a local server, providing the stored
`audio files’ to the slave device….This
`allows the user of one pair of Rosener-
`Hankey-Haupt/Rosener-Hankey-Dyer-
`Haupt canalphones to synchronously
`share audio with the user of another pair
`of the canalphones via Bluetooth.
`
`Thus, for example, if one user is listening
`to his/her favorite Britney Spears song,
`that user can transmit that song via
`Bluetooth connection to another user’s
`headphones to allow both users to
`synchronously listen to the song.”
`Cooperstock Decl. at 142
`(Citing to Haupt at 10, and cited in Peition at 62-63)
`
`Petition at 63
`(citing to Cooperstock Decl. at 141)
`
`DEMONSTRAT
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
