`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 42
`Entered: May 19, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: April 5, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. MCKONE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DAVID HOLT, ESQ.
`KARL RENNER, ESQ.
`BRIAN BOZZO, ESQ.
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`1000 Maine Ave., SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MARK G. KNEDEISEN, ESQ.
`LAURÉN SHUTTLEWORTH MURRAY, ESQ.
`BRIAN P. BOZZO, ESQ.
`RAGAE GHABRIAL, ESQ.
`K&L GATES
`K&L Gates Center
`210 Sixth Avenue
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, April 5,
`
`2022, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, held by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` (Proceedings begin at 1:00 p.m.)
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Good morning, or afternoon, as the
`case may be.
` This is the final hearing on IPR2021-00381.
` Petitioner is Apple, Inc., and Koss Corporation is the owner
` of U.S. Patent No. 10,491,982.
` Just a quick technical check. Counsel for
` petitioner, can you hear me?
` MR. RENNER: Yes, Your Honor. This is Karl Renner.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Just --
` MR. RENNER: And David, can you hear him on the
`video?
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay.
` MR. HOLT: Yes.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Well, I've had a little bit
`of a technical issue here so I want to make sure everybody
`can hear me.
` Mr. Knedeisen, can you hear me as well?
` MR. KNEDEISEN: Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear
`me?
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Yes, I do. Okay.
` With the technical issues resolved, let's proceed.
` Administratively, I am Judge Anderson. We are
`joined in this hearing with PTAB Judges McKone and Beamer.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` We're all participating via teleconference so there
`are some things to keep in mind.
` Primarily is the need to identify the slides you're
`using. I believe everybody's numbered them, so give us a
`number, we all have a copy of your respective slide sets,
`and we are able to follow along.
` We also have copies of, I think, all -- for certain,
`the most principal of the pleadings that have been filed.
` Per our order, each party is going to have -- so you
`can refer to the pleadings. That's what I'm saying to you.
` Each party is going to have 60 minutes total to
`present their argument. Petitioner has the burden to show
`unpatentability and will go first, patent owner will follow,
`and petitioner may reserve time to rebut patent owner, and
`similarly, once the petitioner is through with its rebuttal,
`if reserved, then patent owner may have whatever time is
`asked for sur-rebuttal.
` We don't have a timer, and that, for me, is a little
`bit of an issue because I'm not a good multi-tasker, but I
`will go ahead and make an effort. And I've asked Judges
` McKone and Beamer to also assist me in keeping track of the
` time, so we will have, hopefully, enough fire power to
` actually tell you where you are in your reservation of time.
` We didn't get any objections to the demonstratives,
` for which I greatly appreciate your efforts in that if you
` made any, so at this time let's get introductions formally
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` for the record, first starting with petitioner.
` MR. HOLT: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
` David Holt here on behalf of petitioner, Apple. I'm
` also joined by lead counsel Karl Renner by audio.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. We have had the pleasure
`before, so that's great.
` Patent owner, Mr. Knedeisen. Go ahead and introduce
` yourself and whoever else is there for patent owner.
` MR. KNEDEISEN: Yes. This is Mark Knedeisen of K&L
`Gates for patent owner. With me in the room, not on the
`Webex, are Ragae Ghabrial, Laurén Shuttleworth Murray, and
`Brian Bozzo, all of K&L Gates, and all counsel of record, I
`believe.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Very good.
` Petitioner, as I just said, you're going to start,
` so do you want to reserve any time for rebuttal?
` MR. HOLT: Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to reserve 20
`minutes, please.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: 20 minutes. Okay. Give me a
`moment to set that.
` Okay. I am doing a start, and so you have your
` hour, you're going to use 40 minutes right now, and then
` you'll have 20 minutes left.
` And we are beginning now. Please proceed.
` MR. HOLT: May it please the Board, my name is David
`Holt, and I'll be presenting on behalf of Petitioner Apple
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`with respect to the '982 patent today.
` The '982 patent is the second of a series of patents
` related to wireless headphones for which Your Honors have
` and will be hearing arguments.
` There are two other proceedings that relate to the
` same specification and involve some of these same prior art
` references. Those are IPR2021-00305 related to the '325
` patent, and IPR2021-00592 related to the '934 patent.
` As you recall, we had the hearing for the '325
` patent on March 3rd, and a number of the issues we discussed
` during that hearing will be discussed again here today.
` With that in mind, on Slide 2, we see a listing of
`the arguments raised by Koss in its patent owner response
`and sur-reply. These are discrete issues and we'll be
`addressing each in turn.
` The first issue relates to a POSITA's expectation of
`success in combining Rosener, Hankey, and Dyer.
` Under this broader category, there are a number of
`individual arguments about how a POSITA would have
`interpreted the art and whether a POSITA would have been
`capable of making the proposed combination, and we'll step
`through each of those.
` The second issue relates to Depend Claims 4 and 5
`and the combination with the Haupt reference. The question
`here, which was raised belatedly in the sur-reply, is whether
`the transmission initiated by the headphones arrives at the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`remote server.
` The third issue is whether the claimed firmware
`updates would have been obvious in light of the teachings of
`Price.
` The fourth issue relates to microphone activation
`and whether it would have been obvious to integrate a mute
`button like the one taught in Paulson.
` The fifth issue is whether Rosener's signal
`conditioning circuit 916 is a digital signal processor,
`which should sound familiar from the '325 hearing.
` And finally, Koss argues that the commercial success
`of Apple's own products implicate the obviousness of Koss'
`claims, which it does not.
` If you'll turn to Slide 3, you'll see the grounds
`that were raised in this petition against the challenged
`claims of the '982 patent.
` Notably, the arguments about which we'll be talking
`today directly implicate Grounds 1A through 1D. There are
`no separate arguments about the prima facie cases of
`obviousness related to the Huddart and Vanderelli
`combinations which are Grounds 1E and 1F respectively.
` Turning to Slide 4, we have provided a brief
`overview of the '982 patent.
` The '982 patent holds itself as being about
`streaming audio, as we see at the top.
` The summary of the invention in Column 2 of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`patent focuses exclusively on the connectivity of the
`earphones to various audio sources via various network
`types, and the detailed description spends the majority of
`its disclosure focusing on these connectivity issues, yet
`you'll hear a lot today about the alleged complexities of
`entirely different parts of the earphones, things like the
`reliability of the battery, the selection of the right
`transducer, and the materials needed to package the
`earphones effectively.
` As you hear these arguments, recall that many of
`these alleged complexities are spoken of very little, if at
`all, in the '982 patent specification, and this is important
`for assessing obviousness, as we'll discuss.
` With that in mind, let's jump to Slide 7.
` As you see here on Slide 7, we start our
`conversation with respect to the success of a POSITA in
`making the petition's proposed combination of Rosener,
`Hankey, and Haupt, and various issues raised by Koss with
`respect to disclosures of the prior art.
` If we turn to Slide 8, we'll see that these
`arguments implicate a number of different limitations of
`Claim 1 highlighted in bold on the slide. You may need to
`zoom in to see the bolding. What many of these arguments
`come down to, though, is the disclosure of the prior art
`references and the skill of a POSITA in implementing them.
` What we see when we actually look at the prior art
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`is that the prior art references provide just as much and,
`in fact, more implementation details than the '982 patent.
` Thus, under the Federal Circuit's In Re: Epstein
`case, we can conclude that if a POSITA could implement the
`'982 patent claims based on the '982 patent disclosure, they
`could have equally implemented the proposed combination.
` But to set the stage, let's step back and start by
`taking a moment to understand the proposed combinations and
`why a POSITA would have been motivated to make them.
` On Slide 9, we see excerpts from the petition
`describing the combination of Rosener and Hankey, the two
`primary references.
` In short, Rosener discloses a pair of small,
`physically separate earphones 502 and 504, and it provides
`details about how these earphones receive audio from an
`audio source in synchronized playback with one another.
` Like the '982 patent, Rosener primarily focuses on
`the connectivity of those earbuds and leaves the details of
`the specific physical layout of the components to the
`POSITA.
` As described in the petition, which we see at the
`bottom, when seeking to implement the features disclosed by
`Rosener, a POSITA would have found it obvious to turn to
`Hankey which discloses many of the same physical components
`and also provides an obvious example of a physical layout
`for those components that a POSITA would have utilized in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`actually building a pair of the earphones.
` If you turn to Slide 10, Hankey provides much more
`detailed schematics that teach a POSITA at least one obvious
`way to implement earphones like those disclosed in Rosener.
` As explained in the petition, Hankey recognized the
`need to account for size and weight when designing small
`earphones. For example, paragraph 11 of Hankey, which is
`cited to here but is not actually provided on the slide,
`states, "The size and weight of headsets can be key issues
`because of how they typically mount to a user's ear. A
`heavy or large headset can pull on a user's ear, creating an
`uncomfortable fit. The shape of headset earpieces, e.g.
`earbuds, may also be an important design consideration to
`take into account."
` Thus, as explained in the petition and shown in the
`figures at the right of this slide, Hankey provides
`techniques for packaging electronics within a small, compact
`unit to alleviate the size and shape hassles of conventional
`headsets.
` Hankey's techniques fall directly within the
`explicit goals of Rosener. Paragraphs 6 through 10 of
`Rosener describe a desire to develop wireless earbuds that
`avoided the need for uncomfortable and/or disruptive
`headbands that are required by other larger over-the-ear
`headphones. That makes Hankey a natural place for a POSITA
`to turn when seeking to implement Rosener's earphones.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` Slide 11 includes key excerpts from Hankey that
`teach how a POSITA could separate the electronics of an
`earphone into multiple smaller circuit boards and connect
`them via flexible circuit boards.
` What we see in the figures at right is an example
`implementation of an earphone with the components laid out
`just as described in Claim 1 of the '982 patent.
` For example, in Figure 20C at the bottom, we see an
`implementation in which the wireless communication circuit,
`processor circuit, and acoustic transducer are all in the
`body portion, which here is labeled 2014, it's the bulbous
`portion, kind of, above the lower, longer portion.
` Turning to Slide 12, we see the similarity in the
`general form factor of the Rosener earphones in the upper
` left and the Hankey headset on the upper right, and thus,
` the petition and Dr. Cooperstock explain that a POSITA would
` have found it obvious to make the proposed combination and
` implement the Rosener earphones in a layout similar to that
` disclosed in Hankey.
` Koss' arguments against this combination largely
` attempt to play games with the skill of a POSITA or muddy
` how a POSITA would read what is otherwise clear and
` straightforward in the disclosures of the references, and
` we'll walk you through some of those examples now.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Mr. Holt, before you get there,
`just give me your position on the person of ordinary skill
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`and the design of these wireless earphones, because patent
`owner makes the point that Mr. Cooper -- or I can't
`remember -- I think he's a doctor, I don't want to --
` MR. HOLT: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: -- offend him -- that he's not a
`designer of such equipment and has, in fact, a greater than
`the ordinary skill.
` What's your position there?
` MR. HOLT: Well, Your Honor, we believe that the
`definition of the POSITA in the petition is the correct one,
`but that it would, in fact, encompass the ability to create
`these earphones.
` The questions that were raised by patent owner
`during the deposition and that were highlighted in the POR --
`and we'll go through some of those in later slides -- are
`largely about issues of whether or not Dr. Cooperstock could,
`for example, explain exactly mechanically how a transducer
`works or exactly how the circuit board in Hankey would have
`been designed and what materials are used.
` We don't actually think that a POSITA has to be able
` to create all of the components of the earphones from
` scratch, we think that a POSITA that meets the definition
` provided in the petition would have been able to take
` off-the-shelf and known materials, like those described in
` the references as well as those that were brought forward in
` the reply to respond to Koss' arguments about whether
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` certain things were known or not known, and be able to
` simply package them together because the teachings to do so
` were in the references themselves.
` Does that answer your question, Judge Anderson?
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Yeah. Go ahead.
` MR. HOLT: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
` One example of the type of argument about a POSITA
`that I was just talking about we can see on Slide 13. And
`we see Koss arguing that a POSITA would not have had the
`skill necessary to combine the references because
`Dr. Cooperstock could not name a suitable material for the
`flexible electrical connector disclosed in Hankey, but their
`argument misses the proper legal test entirely.
` The proof of obviousness does not require a POSITA
`to be able to make every element from scratch in order for
`that POSITA to be able to make and use explicitly disclosed
`components that are in the prior art, that would be like
`saying a broad claim to a vehicle with a six-cylinder engine
`and four tires is not obvious because the POSITA did not
`have the exact chemical compound of the best possible tires
`or the exact cylinder size of the engine.
` So long as the prior art disclosed cars with
`six-cylinder engines and tires and a POSITA could obtain
`those components off the shelf as of the claim's priority
`date, it would be obvious for that POSITA to make the
`broadly claimed car.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` That's exactly what we have here. The reply, which
`we see on the lower right of the slide, 13 that is, cites to
`various prior art references demonstrating that flexible
`circuit boards, like disclosed in Hankey, were well known
`before the critical date so the POSITA need not create them
`from scratch, they wouldn't need to know the best materials,
`but need only use those known materials in the manner
`specifically disclosed in Hankey. That is the very essence
`of obviousness.
` On Slide 16, we see a similar argument with respect
`to the transducer that we discussed a moment ago. Koss
`argues that a POSITA would not have had the skill necessary
`to implement the proposed combination because
`Dr. Cooperstock could not explain the mechanical details of
`how the disclosed transducers operate, but a POSITA need not
`know these details so long as such transducers were widely
`known and available, which they were. Indeed, the
`disclosures of both Rosener and Hankey suggest as much. For
`example, in the top right of Slide 16, we see Rosener's
`discussion of various types of such transducers.
` And we see on Slide 17 the fact that the '982 patent
`spends even less time focusing on the details of its own
`transducer, it means that if the '982 disclosure enables a
`POSITA to make the '982 claims, so too does Rosener and
`Hankey, which include at least as much, if not more, detail.
` If we move to Slide 18, we see a different argument,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`but it also relates to a POSITA's understanding of how to
`implement what is otherwise clearly disclosed in Rosener and
`Hankey, which is that each earphone includes a microphone.
` If we jump to Slide 20, we see the key disclosure of
`Rosener in the lower left. Rosener teaches that, "Either/or
`both the first and second data syncs 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."
` That is, Rosener discloses that the data source
`shown, for example, in the embodiment of Figure 9 at right
`may be a microphone and that both earphones may be
`implemented this way.
` In determining whether this disclosure from Rosener
`applies to Figure 9, we asked Koss' expert, Mr. McAlexander,
`during deposition whether the data source 922 in Figure 9
`can be either a sensor or microphone as disclosed here in
`paragraph 56.
` And if you turn back to Slide 19, you see in the
`lower left that he answered, "It can be."
` Thus, the disclosure in paragraph 56 clearly applies
`to each source in Figure 9, and Figure 9 shows the layout of
`each earphone. Paragraph 56 thus teaches a POSITA that each
`of the Figure 9 earphones may include a microphone. That is
`the plain language of Rosener.
` Koss tries to introduce ambiguity into paragraph 56
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`of Rosener by arguing that no such specific embodiment
`explicitly discloses a microphone in each earphone, but
`that's not necessary. Paragraph 56 teaches such an
`implementation to a POSITA.
` That being said, I'd like to give you a sense of how
`Koss is having to bend over backwards to interpret the prior
`art to make this argument by turning to Slide 21.
` Here, we see an excerpt from the patent owner
`response. Koss has quoted Hankey in the center.
` As we see in the highlighted portion from their own
`POR, Hankey teaches that, "Headsets can include one or more
`speakers in proximity to one or both ears for audio output
`and/or one or more microphones for audio input."
` Thus, Hankey also clearly teaches an implementation
`in which the headsets have speakers in proximity to both
`ears and multiple microphones.
` Yet just below this quote we see Koss arguing that
`Hankey merely describes a microphone positioned in one
`earpiece. That argument is not at all supported by the
`prior quote which talks about the headset being split so
`that speakers are in proximity to both ears.
` And even still, this quote from Hankey clearly
`undermines Koss' broader contention in the POR that a POSITA
`would not have wanted to include more than a single
`microphone in Rosener's earphones due to various technical
`complexities that they concoct.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` This quote Koss highlights from Hankey shows that's
`simply not true. POSITAs were, in fact, including multiple
`microphones in their systems as of the critical date.
` Yet another argument about a POSITA's skill and
`ability in implementing what is otherwise explicitly
`disclosed in the prior art can be seen in Slide 25 and
`relates to the claimed ear canal portion of the earphones.
` On Slide 26, we see that, in the petition, Apple
`pointed to Rosener's explicit disclosure that its earphones
`could be implemented as canal phones to meet this feature,
`and Your Honors correctly recognized that this alone was
`enough, that Rosener explicitly discloses canal phones
`renders obvious the claimed ear canal portion.
` When addressing this limitation in the POR, Koss did
`not address the Board's earlier finding that Rosener's
`disclosure alone is sufficient. Instead, Koss simply
`attacks the petition's combination with Dyer.
` However, on page 29 of the petition, which is not
`included here in the slides, I wanted to read from the
`petition because it states, "While the combination of Hankey
`and Rosener teaches a configuration, as recited in the
`challenged claims, to the extent patent owner claims that a
`POSITA would have required additional specificity as to the
`structure of the portion of the canal phone that is inserted
`into a user's ear, Dyer provides the necessary teaching."
` Thus, the combination with Dyer is not necessary to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`reach the merits of whether these claims are obvious. Yet
`even if you evaluate Koss' arguments with respect to Dyer,
`they have little merit.
` If we jump to Slide 30, we see that Koss' arguments
`are very similar to those we saw in the hearing related to
`the '325 patent and the ear lube.
` Koss relied upon the testimony of a Koss employee, a
`clearly interested party, to argue that implementing the
`earphones as canal phones using the Dyer ear tips would have
`led to the earphones falling out of the user's ear.
` However, the basic premise of Koss' argument makes
`little logical sense. Mr. Blair focuses his testimony on
`the idea that the earphone would only be secured by a
`portion of the ear tip being inserted into the ear canal of
`the user, but that's simply not true.
` As explained on pages 15 through 17 of the
`petitioner reply, and shown in the first bullet here on the
`slide on the right, the addition of the Dyer ear tip to the
`Rosener/Hankey earphone would actually have gained further
`security to the user's ear.
` If we jump to Slide 67, we see the proposed
`combination of Rosener, Hankey, and Dyer on the right and a
`figure of the ear from Koss' POR on the left.
` Using Dyer's ear tip, the earbud portion shown in
`Hankey becomes a canal phone and the orange tip extends
`slightly into the ear canal of the user, yet the majority of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`the body portion, like the sub-enclosure portion labeled 115
`and colored gray still sits in the concha of the user's ear.
` This body portion is secured by the user's tragus
`and antitragus, which are flaps near the bottom of the ear
`and are labeled in the figure on the left. You can see the
`little flaps there.
` As Koss acknowledges, the tragus and antitragus are
`how all earbuds are secured in the user's ear. By extending
`the ear tip into a portion of the ear canal, the earpiece
`retains the body portion being held by the tragus and
`antitragus, but also gains some friction from the
`interaction between the ear tip and the ear canal, which
`makes the earphone even more secure than it otherwise would
`have been.
` Thus, setting aside that he's an interested
`declarant that made a number of unjustified assumptions,
`it's quite clear that Mr. Blair's analysis and conclusions
`just don't stand up to plain common sense.
` Are there any questions about that? All right.
` Those are the primary arguments Koss raises with
`respect to independent Claim 1. It's a bit of a hodgepodge,
`but the character of those arguments is all quite similar in
`that they drastically undersell the teachings of the prior
`art and a POSITA's ability to understand and implement those
`teachings.
` Now I'd like to turn to Koss' various arguments with
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` respect to the dependent claims, but before I do, I want to
` pause and just ask are there any further questions more
` generally about Independent Claim 1?
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Mr. Holt, you can assume that we if
`we don't interrupt you, we have no questions.
` MR. HOLT: Okay.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: This causes, sort of, a pause. I
`want you to use your time efficiently so go ahead.
` I don't have any. The other Panel will jump in if
`they do.
` MR. HOLT: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll note that
`going forward. I appreciate it.
` All right. Well, then first we turn to Dependent
` Claims 4 and 5, which evolve a combination with the Haupt
` reference.
` So you can jump back to Slide 32 now. And we see
` the relevant claim language which states that, "The
` processor 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."
` There seems to have been a clear misunderstanding by
`Koss in their POR about how the petition relied upon Haupt
`in the proposed combination. They mistakenly assume it was
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`the same combination advanced in other proceedings, but it
`was not.
` Thus, as explained in the reply, the entirety of
`Koss' arguments in the POR with respect to the Haupt
`combination do not address the aspects of Haupt actually
`relied upon in the petition and are, therefore, moot.
` Belatedly recognizing this in their sur-reply, Koss
`raised wholly new argument to address the actual
`combinations set forth in the petition. These arguments
`lack any expert support to substantiate the attorney
`argument regarding the teachings of Haupt.
` We'll leave to Your Honors whether it is even proper
`to consider these arguments where neither party has any
`expert testimony to address them, yet we want to talk you
`through the actual combination so that you understand it,
`and this will make clear why even Koss' belated arguments
`are without merit.
` In the petition, the combination with Haupt was
`described with respect to Claims 3 through 5. Koss never
`raises arguments with respect to Dependent Claim 3, which
`relates to two different operational modes of the earphones,
`but Claim 3 is nonetheless important for understanding the
`proposed combination, and the discussion of Claim 3 is
`referenced in the petition when presenting the ground for
`Claim 4.
` In essence, the combination with Haupt is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`illustrated in the figure on the right of Slide 34.
` In the proposed combination, based on the disclosure
`in Haupt, there are two sets of the Rosener/Hankey/Haupt
`earphones and two users that can use them to listen to
`music.
` Based on the combination with Haupt, these
`headphones gain two playback modes that are described in the
`petition.
` In a first playback mode described on this slide,
`each pair of the Rosener/Hankey/Haupt headphones can
`communicate directly with a remote public server labeled OS
`to stream audio, and this is disclosed in Haupt.
` Let's imagine Judge Beamer and Judge McKone are the
`users of these two headphones. In this direct streaming
`mode, Judge Beamer is listening to his favorite Michael
`Bolton song and Judge McKone is listening to his favorite
`Whitney Houston song.
` Each is listening independently and each is able to
`communicate commands to the public server to control
`playback of their independent streams. That is how Haupt
`teaches that each of its headphones work.
` But as we see on Slide 35, this direct connection to
`the server is not the only mode that Haupt discloses. Haupt
`also discloses a master slave configuration in which one of
`the headphones is able to stream its own audio to the other
`headphones so that the users can listen together.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` Going back to the earlier example, Judge Beamer now
`hears his favorite Britney Spears song and wants to share
`the joy of hearing it with Judge McKone and so initiates
`this master slave mode. In this mode, Haupt teaches that
`Judge Beamer's headphones act as a type of local server and
`share their audio with Judge McKone's headphones.
` As a result of this capability. This means that
`Judge Beamer's headphones are configured to be a mobile
`digital audio player to Judge McKone's headphones. The
`master headphones are certainly mobile, and they are capable
` of acting as the local source of audio for Judge McKone's
` headphones.
` There is no argument on this record that the master
` headphones do not constitute a mobile digital audio player
` as a result of this master slave configuration. Rather, the
` issue is about the headphones' transmission of a request to
` the server.
`