Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 37
`Entered: June 15, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD., D/B/A GWEE,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: May 19, 2022
`__________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 37
`Entered: June 15, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD., D/B/A GWEE,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: May 19, 2022
`__________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`KARL RENNER, ESQ.
`ANDREW PATRICK, ESQ.
`KIM LEUNG, ESQ.
`KENNETH DARBY, ESQ.
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue, S.W.
`Washington, DC 20024
`(202) 626-6447
`renner@fr.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`TAREK FAHMI, ESQ.
`Ascenda Law Group, P.C.
`2150 N. First Street
`San Jose, CA 95131
`(866) 877-4883
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`JOHN EDMONDS, ESQ.
`Edmonds & Schlather, PLLC
`2501 Saltus Street
`Houston, TX 77003
`(713) 364-5291
`jedmonds@ip-lit.com
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on May 19, 2022,
`commencing at 1:00 p.m. EDT, via Videoconference.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`
`
`1:00 p.m.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: We are here today for oral arguments in
`Inter Parties Review matter number 2021-00470, a case in which US Patent
`Number 10,259,020 is at issue. I am Judge Ullagaddi. Your panel includes
`myself, Judge Medley and Judge McShane.
`I'd like to start by getting appearances of counsel. Who do we have
`on behalf of the petitioner?
`MR. PATRICK: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm Andrew Patrick from
`Fish & Richardson and I'm joined today by my colleagues Karl Renner and
`Kim Leung.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Thank you. And who do we have on behalf
`of patent owner?
`MR. FAHMI: Your Honor, it's Tarek Fahmi on behalf of the patent
`owner. With me, is the lead counsel, John Edmonds.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Thank you. The judges have the parties'
`demonstratives. Please remember when referring to the demonstratives to
`identify what slide number you're on so that we can all follow along and
`make the record clear. Also, for the record, please identify yourself when
`speaking. Patent owner will have 60 minutes to argue its case and petitioner
`you will have a LEAP practitioner presenting will have 75 minutes to argue
`its case.
`Petitioner who bears the burden to show unpatentability of the
`challenge claims by a preponderance of the evidence will begin by
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`presenting its case-in-chief. Patent owner will then respond to petitioner's
`argument. Thereafter, petitioner may use any time at his reserve for rebuttal
`to respond to patent owner's arguments. Petitioner's rebuttal may not be
`more than half the allotted time and thereafter patent owner may use any
`time that it has reserved for its rebuttal to respond to petitioner's rebuttal.
`Petitioner's counsel, would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal
`
`today?
`
`MR. PATRICK: Thank you, Your Honors. We would like to
`reserve 35 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Okay, that leaves 40 minutes for your main
`case and when you are ready, you may begin.
`MR. PATRICK: Thank you, Your Honors. May it please the court,
`my name is Andrew Patrick. I represent the petitioner. I'd like to ask you to
`turn to slide two of our demonstratives, which provides an overview of the
`presentation. As shown in the table of contents provided on this slide, I plan
`to begin our presentation with a review of what we've labeled Issue One, the
`ways in which Bohbot's teachings render obvious the claimed switching
`device. I'll then turn the podium over to my colleague, Kim Leung, who will
`address Issue Two, the obviousness of the claimed recess and
`complementary surfaces over the combined teachings of Bohbot and
`Gundlach.
`I'd like to ask Your Honors to turn now to slide four, which begins
`our treatment of Issue One. As shown on the slide, the 020 patent's
`independent Claim One recites a portable switching device coupled to a
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`portable electronic device. It goes on to state that the portable switching
`device is configured to activate, deactivate or send into hibernation the
`portable electronic device.
`At core, the dispute between the parties with respect to the switching
`device limitations centers on whether, and as Dr. Cooperstock testified in
`both his original and reply declarations, a person of skill would have
`understood the claimed switching device to encompass the device that when
`in close proximity to a portable electronic device causes that portable
`electronic device to switch from one state to another or whether, as Gwee
`argued, without articulating its own interpretation of the term, the claimed
`switching device would need to do something more than causing the
`electronic device to transition or switch from one state to another.
`As shown on slide five, the petition demonstrated the obviousness of
`the switching device features over Bohbot's teachings in three independent
`ways, each of which involved an activation of Bohbot's primary module by
`Bohbot's headset and each of which were supported by Dr. Cooperstock's
`original declaration and corroborating evidence. More specifically, Bohbot's
`headset acts as a switching device that activates Bohbot's primary module in
`at least three ways when coupled to Bohbot's primary module.
`First, the headset activates discharging the power from the primary
`module's main power storage device to the headset's secondary power
`storage device.
`Second, the headset activates receipt and storage of data at the
`primary module's data storage unit.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`Third, the headset activates the primary module's microphone
`circuitry.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Can I pause you just for a second, counsel?
`MR. PATRICK: Certainly.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: I just want to confirm that the court reporter
`is online.
`COURT REPORTER: Yes, I am.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Okay, thank you. Just checking. Thank
`you, counsel, you can continue.
`MR. PATRICK: Thank you. So in more detail, if we were to move
`ahead to slide seven, we see Dr. Cooperstock's original testimony regarding
`the first of those mappings. In which, he explained that Bohbot's headset
`causes the main power storage device of Bohbot's primary module to switch
`from an inactive state, in which it does not transmit power to the detachable
`headset to an active state, in which it does transmit power to the headset
`when the headset is coupled to the primary module.
`More specifically, turning to slide eight, we can see Bohbot's
`disclosure that the detachable headset recharges automatically as soon as it is
`attached to the primary module.
`Turning to slide nine, we can see Gwee's attempt to diminish this
`disclosure as relating to nothing more than "the flow of electrons across
`blade connectors of Bohbot's primary module and headset. It's worth
`pausing for a moment to consider that by this argument, Gwee admits that
`connection between Bohbot's headset and Bohbot's primary module causes
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`electricity flow where none flowed before. But then something curious
`happens, which is that Gwee asserts that the change in physical state of the
`primary module activation of the module's charging circuitry and related
`flow of electricity from the primary module's power storage device to the
`headset does not in itself constitute a change of state.
`Gwee further argues that there's no reason to conclude that any
`switching has taken place.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Counsel, let me ask a question here. So, is
`it the change of state from, I'm going to go with one of the three theories, is
`it the change of state from charging to discharging that is the switching and
`state change or is it the change of electron flow from not flowing to flowing
`that is what's considered to be switching?
`MR. PATRICK: Thank you, Your Honor. Honestly, I think that
`each of those could be considered a switch and actually if we were look to
`slide 10, Dr. Cooperstock noted that the person of skill reading Bohbot
`would have understood that the primary module's power storage device
`switches between states from a storage or a deactivated state to a discharging
`or activated state when the headset is connected to the primary module. And
`for at least that reason, Bohbot's headset is a switching device that activates
`the primary module; more specifically, it's the charging circuitry within the
`primary module, including the power storage device that is activated as a
`direct consequence of the connection occurring between the headset and the
`primary module. But, of course, part of that process would involve the flow
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`of electrons across those blade connectors as Gwee admits occurs. It is by
`virtue of the flow of electrons that the circuitry becomes active.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Thank you.
`MR. PATRICK: Thank you, Your Honors. Further, I wanted to
`point out with regard to the primary module and these arguments, Dr.
`Cooperstock's confirmation at the top of slide 10, that whether and in what
`direction electrons flow indicates the state of the power storage device. For
`example, Dr. Cooperstock explained that the primary module's power
`storage device may be in any of at least three states depending on electron
`flow. So, first there could be a charging state where electrical energy flows
`into the power storage device. There's a storage state where electrical
`energy is maintained in the power storage device. And, third, there's a
`discharging state where electrical energy flows out of the power storage
`device.
`So, here what we're referring to is the discharging state where the
`energy is flying out of the power storage device through the blade contacts
`and into the secondary storage device of the headset. It's that process that's
`been activated, as a consequence of the connection.
`Unless Your Honors presently have questions on that mapping, I'd
`like to ask you to turn to slide 12, which addresses the headsets activation at
`the primary module's data storage functions. More specifically, Dr.
`Cooperstock testified that Bohbot's headset causes the data storage means of
`Bohbot's primary module to switch from an inactive state in which it does
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`not receive data, to an active state in which does receive data when the
`headset is coupled to the primary module.
`On slide 13, we can see Bohbot's disclosure that the storage means
`receives and stores data when the detachable module is in contact with the
`primary module.
`On slide 14, we see Gwee's attempt to diminish this disclosure as
`relating to nothing more than a mere flow of data which, according to Gwee,
`is insufficient to show that a device has been activated by switching. In that
`regard, it's again worth noting that Gwee has not articulate a view as to what
`it would consider sufficient. Whatever that may be, Gwee also here repeats
`its strange assertion that a change in physical state of the primary module, in
`this case, the received data by the data storage means within Bohbot's
`primary module does not itself constitute a state change. Gwee further
`argues that petitioner has no explanation for how passive receipt of data by
`Bohbot's primary module would show Bohbot's headset to be a switching
`device.
`Now, it's odd that Gwee argues that this is a passive process
`considering that Gwee also elsewhere attempted to distinguish Bohbot's data
`transmission based on their assertion that it only takes place following a
`request from the primary module for data. First of all, that's not actually
`disclosed within Bohbot. It's something that they imagined to be there, but
`secondly if the data transmission process did require a receipt of request and
`a response to that request in addition to the context that would seem to
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`defeat what they're saying about this being nothing more than the mere flow
`of electrons.
`Moreover, and contrary to Gwee's assertion that this mapping has
`gone unexplained, we can see Dr. Cooperstock's explanation on slide 15 that
`Bohbot's primary module's data storage unit receives and stores data only
`when the headset is connected and sending data to the primary module.
`More specifically, Dr. Cooperstock explains that a person of skill reading
`Bohbot would have understood that the primary module's data storage unit
`switches between states from not receiving data, deactivated or inoperative,
`to receiving data, activated or operative, when the headset is connected and
`starts sending data to the primary module. For at least that additional reason,
`Bohbot's headset is a switching device that activates the primary module.
`Moreover, as established in the petition and addressed at length in
`the briefing that followed, Bohbot further renders obvious the claim
`switching device through its disclosure of the headset's activation of the
`primary module's microphone circuitry. Now if Your Honors would like,
`we could speak at length about that aspect, otherwise, unless Your Honors
`have questions on the data storage or microphone circuitry mappings, we
`could turn to slide 28.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: We can go to slide 28, that's fine.
`MR. PATRICK: Thank you, Your Honor. So skipping ahead to
`slide 28 and summing up what we covered thus far, we can see Dr.
`Cooperstock's testimony that the primary module's power storage device,
`data storage unit and microphone circuitry are all activated when the headset
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`is connected to the primary module and are all deactivated when the headset
`is disconnected from the primary module. Gwee apparently agrees with the
`latter point indeed and what's quoted on the same slide is Gwee's admission
`that Bohbot already has functionality for the primary module not receiving
`data. The primary module not providing power and the primary module not
`having its microphone on when Bohbot's headset is not magnetically
`coupled to the primary module.
`Conversely, we've demonstrated on this record that magnetically
`coupling Bohbot's headset to its primary module causes various components
`of that module to activate, switching between states and rather than
`confronting the petition's substantial evidence of impactability, Gwee has
`recycled arguments that failed at the institution stage. For example, that
`Bohbot's headset only passively causes the primary module to undergo
`various changes in state upon contact and that the claimed switching device
`requires something more than state change in the form of activation.
`However, Gwee has not expressed, again, what that something more might
`be.
`
`In that regard, Your Honors have a robust record including Dr.
`Cooperstock's declarations and corroborating evidence demonstrating the
`obviousness of the claimed switching device over Bohbot's teachings and no
`substantial evidence of countervailing considerations that would support
`distinguishing the applied art on that basis. With that, we would be happy to
`take whatever additional questions Your Honors may have on this topic, but
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`if there are none, I'll turn the podium over to my colleague, Kim Leung, who
`will address Issue Two.
`MS. LEUNG: Thanks, Andrew. Good afternoon, Your Honors. If
`you please turn to slide 30, I'm going to begin my discussion with Issue
`Two.
`
`So here on slide 30 we see the claim elements implicated by the
`Bohbot-Gundlach combination. More specifically, the claims of the 020
`patent require that the case of the electronic device have at least one element
`selected from a group of elements, which include recessed areas configured
`to correspond to complementary surface elements on the switching device.
`The claims also require, as highlighted on the bottom, that the case of the
`electronic device function to protect the case of the switching device.
`Now turning to slide 31, we see the proposed modification of
`Bohbot's primary module, which is the electronic device to include a
`contoured recess configured to correspond to complementary surface
`elements of the detachable headset, which is the switching device. In the
`figure on the right, the recessed area of the primary module is shown in
`green and the headset, which is retained in that recessed area is outlined in
`orange.
`JUDGE McSHANE: Counsel, I'm sorry to interrupt. Just a quick
`one. This is Judge McShane. Is it your position that when the device is in
`the case, that you can operate the device?
`MS. LEUNG: Yes, when the device is still in the case, the headset is
`still operable. As Bohbot discusses, the user can hold Bohbot's entire device
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`to its ear during a telephone conversation and so when the device is still in
`the case, the headset would still be operable in order for the user to use the
`entire device during a telephone call.
`JUDGE McSHANE: Good, thank you.
`MS. LEUNG: As shown in the figure on the right, the recessed area
`is configured to correspond to the shape and size of the headset and provides
`a semi enclosed protection to the headset when placed in the recessed area.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: So the electronic device, the green recess,
`protects the case of the headset, is that correct?
`MS. LEUNG: That's correct. The recessed area of the electronic
`device, which is the primary module, provides semi-enclosed protection for
`the headset when the headset is placed inside the recess.
`Now turning to slide 32, we see here that Dr. Cooperstock offers
`three separate and distinct rationales for integrating a contoured recess with
`the primary module. His first rationale is to retain the headset in position in
`the primary module. Now to understand why this is beneficial, I want to
`briefly discuss Bohbot's communication device as shown in Bohbot's figure
`three.
`
`As you can see from figure three, there is a rectangular area on the
`primary module that generally matches the shape and size of the headset.
`The headset is configured to be held in position within the rectangular area
`of the primary module so that the blade connectors contact correctly for the
`power and data transfer functionalities that we discussed earlier.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`Now turning to slide 38, the bottom excerpt of Bohbot at page three,
`line 22, expressly states that in order for the contact to take place correctly, it
`is useful for the headset to be held in position in a sufficiently effective way.
`So while Bohbot doesn't expressly describe a recess for holding the headset
`in position for contact to take place correctly, a person of skill would have
`understood that Bohbot didn't intend for the headset to sit flat against a
`primary module being held in position with only a single magnet.
`Otherwise, the headset would swivel around or be easily knocked out of
`position and thereby disconnecting the primary module in the headset and
`interrupting charging and data transfer. Now, a person of skill realizing this
`would have looked for means of achieving Bohbot's goals of having contact
`take place correctly and would have found it in Gundlach's contoured recess.
`We heard earlier today Gwee's counsel that a tight fit is desirable to
`make sure conductive contacts align properly.
`JUDGE McSHANE: Counsel, question. Is it petitioner's position
`that Bohbot teaches a person of ordinary skill in the art that there's a recess?
`It doesn't use those words, but from this quoted portion here on slide 38, a
`POSITA would have known that that's referring to a recess. Is that correct?
`MS. LEUNG: So, yes, while Bohbot doesn't expressly say that from
`this quoted portion on page three, starting at line 22 that it's useful for the
`headset to be held in position in a sufficiently effective way for contact to
`take place correctly. Also shown in figure three of Bohbot, that rectangular
`outline showing where the recess would be placed in order for it to be held
`in position correctly, we believe that Bohbot does teach a person of skill that
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`there would be a recess on the primary module that would hold that headset
`in place.
`JUDGE McSHANE: So, Gundlach's recess, is that just for an
`express teaching or is that for something else?
`MS. LEUNG: That's correct, Your Honor. So, Gundlach's recess is
`for the express teaching of a mechanism that would be used to hold that
`headset in place.
`JUDGE McSHANE: Thank you.
`MS. LEUNG: So further to Bohbot's goal, the recessed area
`functions to hold the headset in position on the primary module for the
`contact between the blade connectors to take place correctly and for the
`primary module and headset to remain connected while the headset is
`attached to the primary module. So, a POSITA would have been motivated
`to incorporate the contoured recess as a means for achieving Bohbot's goal
`of holding the headset in position on the primary module in a sufficiently
`effective way in order for the contact between the blade connectors to take
`place in a correct, reliable and stable manner for that transfer of power and
`data.
`
`Now, Dr. Cooperstock gives us a second reason for incorporating a
`contoured recess into Bohbot's primary module and that is to provide
`protection for the headset to protect it from damage. In Gwee's patent owner
`response at page 27, Gwee argued that a contoured recess would leave one
`side of the headset unprotected and, therefore, would not protect the headset.
`Now this same argument was presented in Gwee's preliminary response at
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`page 10, but Gwee didn't really explain why semi-enclosed protection does
`not offer some protection for the headset. In presenting the same argument
`again in his patent owner response, Gwee made no attempt to provide an
`explanation and, therefore, fails to undermine Dr. Cooperstock's rationale for
`the Bohbot-Gundlach combination as providing semi-enclosed protection for
`the headset.
`Dr. Cooperstock, as you can see on slide 32, provides a third reason,
`which is to prevent easy or untimely detachment of the headset from the
`primary module. Now, specifically to prevent easy detachment in the
`presence of minor jostling or removal by a person with malicious intentions,
`and to prevent untimely detachment that would lead to loss of the headset.
`Now this third rationale is also encouraged by Bohbot itself as Dr.
`Cooperstock explains towards the end of this paragraph shown on slide 32,
`that another one of Bohbot's stated goals is to avoid detachment that is so
`easy that the headset could be easily removed by a person with malicious
`intentions or detachment that is untimely that the headset could be easily
`lost. A person of skill looking to achieve those goals would have looked for
`means to keep the headset in place so that it could not be easily removed by
`a person with malicious intentions or that would lead to untimely
`detachment and would have found it in Gundlach's contoured recess.
`Now on slide 33, we have summarized Gwee's arguments as to why
`a person of skill would not have been motivated to combine Bohbot with
`Gundlach's teachings. Gwee's argument suggests that the proposed
`modification of Bohbot's primary module is to include Gundlach's deep
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`recess, which is shown as “item number one” on the slide. And then in
`doing so, the deep recess becomes a hindrance and would be difficult and
`time consuming to remove the headset with one hand, which is shown in
`items three through six on this slide. Gwee further argues that Bohbot, using
`a magnet, provides all the attaching means needed or desired and would
`have no motivation to add Gundlach's recess which is shown as item two on
`this slide.
`Now to set up these arguments, Gwee attempts to sow confusion
`about the nature of the proposed combination. On page 13 of Gwee's patent
`owner response, Gwee argues that the petition is vague for not specifying
`which Gundlach contoured recess is being referenced. Gwee argues that all
`of Gundlach's recesses contain the entire earpiece making its surface flush
`with the recess device and points to embodiments where the earpieces are
`deeply imbedded in the container so that the container with the earpiece fits
`into an expansion slot.
`However, the petition and Dr. Cooperstock don't rely on those
`embodiments that are intended to fit into an expansion slot and don't rely on
`teachings related to deep recesses that contain the entire earpiece and make
`the container's surface flush with the recessed earpiece. Instead if you look
`at the petition at pages five and six and also on Dr. Cooperstock's
`declaration, what we rely on is Gundlach's teachings relating to earpiece
`cradles that are not described as fitting in an expansion slot. For example, a
`mobile phone in Gundlach's figure 17a, which clearly is not intended to be
`placed in an expansion slot. As another example, a clamshell case in
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`Gundlach's figures 18a and 18b that is nowhere describing Gundlach as
`intended to be placed in an expansion slot.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Can you hang on just a second, counsel,
`while I look at those figures?
`MS. LEUNG: Yes.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Just trying to get there.
`MS. LEUNG: So those figures are also at the petition at pages five
`and six.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Okay. And it's figure 17 and 18?
`MS. LEUNG: Correct, figure 17a and then figures 18a and 18b.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Okay. Thank you. You can continue when
`you're ready.
`MS. LEUNG: Okay, thank you. Now shown on slide 34, Dr.
`Cooperstock referencing his first declaration, provides further explanation in
`his second declaration that the proposed combination incorporates Gundlach
`general teaching of a contoured recess for retaining a headset; not any of
`Gundlach's particular embodiments and not Gundlach's teaching of a deep
`recess. A person of skill using Gundlach's general teachings of a contoured
`recess for retaining a headset would have employed ordinary creativity to
`carry out the combination to achieve a result that is suitable for Bohbot's
`system.
`Now Gwee's remaining arguments are also based on Gwee's
`misconception that Bohbot would incorporate Gundlach's deep recesses and
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`they're not supported by the evidence of record as Dr. Cooperstock explains
`in his second declaration, which we'll review in the next few slides.
`So turning to slide 35, this slide address Gwee's second and third
`arguments that Bohbot provides all the attaching means needed and thus
`there is no need for a recess and a recess becomes a hindrance not a solution.
`Referring to his first declaration, Dr. Cooperstock reiterates and confirms in
`his second declaration that a contoured recess is advantageous in preventing
`untimely or unintentional detachment, damage and removal of the headset.
`In addition to Dr. Cooperstock's explanation in his first declaration of
`providing protection for the headset, Dr. Cooperstock also reiterates in his
`second declaration that Gundlach's contoured recess is a suitable option for
`providing semi-enclosed protection for the headset and Bohbot's magnetic
`attachment doesn't offer such protection. A person of skill would have
`looked for means for protecting the headset when retained in the primary
`module and would have found it in Gundlach's contoured recess.
`On slide 36, we address Gwee's fourth through sixth arguments
`relating to easy and quick detachment of the headset using one hand. For
`these arguments, Gwee relies on various portions of Bohbot, one of which is
`shown on the top portion of the slide. Now this portion of Bohbot describes
`mobile phone accessories, such as headsets, that make it possible for a user
`to make phone calls without having to hold the phone. Now not having to
`hold the phone during a telephone conversation doesn't indicate that the
`headset is easy and quick to detach from the primary module with one hand.
`As Dr. Cooperstock confirms in his second declaration, this portion of
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`Bohbot does not describe the headset as being easy and quick to detach with
`one hand.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: I think, if I'm not mistaken, I think it's
`patent owner's position, as I'm understanding it, that Bohbot's magnet
`coupling would be easy and quick to detach with one hand whereas adding a
`recess as taught by Gundlach would make it more difficult. Do you have
`any comments on that?
`MS. LEUNG: If a recess would be more difficult and would be
`contrary to Bohbot's goal of having easy and quick detachment, a person of
`skill using their ordinary creativity would have been motivated to stay true
`to Bohbot's goal and been able to design the recess or the headset in such a
`way that the headset could still be quickly and easily attached and detached
`from the headset and as an example, Dr. Cooperstock in paragraph 25 of his
`second declaration, gives the example of using a shallow recess. In that
`case, you could still grab onto the side of the headset and pull it out from the
`recess. As another example, it would be to have the speaker portion of the
`headset that's inserted into the ear exposed when the headset is in the case
`and that's shown in the figure on slide 31. So, if you flip to slide 31, you can
`see in that figure that the speaker is still exposed when the headset is
`positioned into the recess of the case. In that case, a user can grab the
`speaker to remove the headset from the case and it would still be easy and
`quick for the user to detach the headset from the case.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI Thank you.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020 B2
`
`MS. LEUNG: So turning to slide 37, Gwee points to another portion
`of Bohbot for the quick and easy detachment and this portion of Bohbot
`comments on the small headset saying that the small headset is not easy to
`quickly find during an incoming call, for example, when it is in a bag. Now
`this criticism of small headsets in Bohbot gives rise to Bohbot's desire for a
`primary module that can be hung on the outside of a bag, which is shown in
`Bohbot's figures 1a and 1b, but this portion of Bohbot doesn't indicate that
`the headset should be easy and quick to detach from the primary module
`using one hand, which Dr. Cooperstock confirms in his second declaration.
`Now additionally, Gwee relies on Bohbot's d
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
