`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`___________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020
`___________________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................. 1
`
`II. BACKGROUND. ................................................................................................ 5
`
`A. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘020 PATENT. ....................................................................... 5
`
`B. PROSECUTION HISTORY ..................................................................................... 7
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ........................................................................ 7
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 8
`
`V. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS .................................... 8
`
`A. GROUND 1A—CLAIMS 1-3, 5-7, 10, 16, AND 19 ARE NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF
`
`BOHBOT AND GUNDLACH. ....................................................................................... 9
`
`1. Overview of Bohbot ....................................................................................... 9
`
`2. Overview of Gundlach. ................................................................................11
`
`B. APPLE’S REASONS FOR COMBINING BOHBOT AND GUNDLACH ARE, TO A
`
`POSITA, UNFOUNDED AND UNPERSUASIVE. ..........................................................12
`
`C. ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 1-3, 5-7, 10, 16, AND 19 ................................................15
`
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................15
`
`2. Claim 2 ........................................................................................................28
`
`3. Claim 3 ........................................................................................................28
`
`4. Claim 5 ........................................................................................................28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`5. Claim 6 ........................................................................................................29
`
`6. Claim 7 ........................................................................................................33
`
`7. Claim 10 ......................................................................................................34
`
`8. Claim 16 ......................................................................................................34
`
`9. Claim 19 ......................................................................................................35
`
`D. GROUND 1B: CLAIM 2 IS NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF BOHBOT, GUNDLACH, AND
`
`NISHIKAWA. ...........................................................................................................35
`
`1. Overview of Nishikawa ................................................................................35
`
`2. The Alleged Bohbot-Gundlach-Nishikawa Combination ............................35
`
`E. GROUND 1C: CLAIMS 4, 18, AND 19 ARE NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF BOHBOT,
`
`GUNDLACH, AND LI. ..............................................................................................36
`
`1. Overview of Li .............................................................................................36
`
`2. The Alleged Bohbot-Gundlach-Li Combination .........................................37
`
`3. Analysis of Claims 4, 18, and 19 .................................................................37
`
`4. Claim 19 ......................................................................................................41
`
`F. GROUND 1D: CLAIMS 8 AND 9 ARE NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF BOHBOT,
`
`GUNDLACH, AND STEVINSON. ................................................................................42
`
`1. Overview of Stevinson .................................................................................42
`
`2. The Alleged Bohbot-Gundlach-Stevinson Combination .............................43
`
`3. Analysis of Claims 8 and 9 ..........................................................................43
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`G. GROUND 1E: CLAIM 10 IS OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF BOHBOT, GUNDLACH, AND
`
`ROSENER. ...............................................................................................................45
`
`1. Overview of Rosener ...................................................................................45
`
`2. The Bohbot-Gundlach-Rosener Combination .............................................45
`
`3. Analysis of Claim 10....................................................................................46
`
`H. GROUND 1F: CLAIM 17 IS NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF BOHBOT, GUNDLACH,
`
`STEVINSON, AND IIO. .............................................................................................46
`
`1. Overview of Iio ............................................................................................46
`
`2. The Alleged Bohbot-Gundlach-Stevinson-Iio Combination .......................48
`
`3. Analysis of Claim 17....................................................................................55
`
`H. GROUND 2A: CLAIMS 1-3, 5-7, 10, 16, AND 19 ARE NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF
`
`BOHBOT, GUNDLACH, AND DIEBEL. .......................................................................57
`
`1. Overview of Diebel ......................................................................................57
`
`2. The Alleged Bohbot-Gundlach-Diebel Combination ..................................57
`
`3. Analysis of 1[f] ............................................................................................60
`
`I. GROUND 2B: CLAIM 2 IS NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF BOHBOT, GUNDLACH,
`
`DIEBEL, AND NISHIKAWA. .....................................................................................62
`
`J. GROUND 2C: CLAIMS 4, 18, AND 19 ARE NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF BOHBOT,
`
`GUNDLACH, DIEBEL, AND LI. .................................................................................62
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`K. GROUND 2D: CLAIMS 8 AND 9 ARE NOT OBVIOUS BASED ON BOHBOT,
`
`GUNDLACH, DIEBEL AND STEVINSON. ...................................................................63
`
`L. GROUND 2E: CLAIM 10 IS NOT OBVIOUS BASED ON BOHBOT, GUNDLACH,
`
`DIEBEL, AND ROSENER. .........................................................................................63
`
`M. GROUND 2F: CLAIM 17 IS NOT OBVIOUS BASED ON BOHBOT, GUNDLACH,
`
`DIEBEL, STEVINSON, AND IIO. ................................................................................63
`
`VI. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................. 64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................ 9
`
`In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ..................................................................... 9
`
`In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011 (CCPA 1967) .............................................................. 9
`
`KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................8, 9
`
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ......................................................... 8
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ...............................................................................................10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`Declaration of Hamid Toliyat, PhD
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`CV of Hamid Toliyat, PhD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The Petition by Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) fails to establish that
`
`challenged claims 1-10 and 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,259,020 (the “‘020 patent”)
`
`are obvious. The crux of Apple’s argument is a fictional Bohbot embodiment, based on
`
`hindsight from the ‘020 patent, that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`invention (a “POSITA”) would not be motivated to make. Indeed, a POSITA would
`
`have no reason or motivation to make the suggested combination for multiple reasons.
`
`First, Bohbot does not disclose a “switching device,” which is a requirement of
`
`multiple claim 1 elements. The first basis for Apple asserting Bohbot discloses a
`
`switching device is that “‘when the detachable headset is in contact with the primary
`
`module,’ power is transmitted from a main power storage device of the primary module
`
`to a secondary power storage device of the headset.” Pet. at 12 (citing Ex. 1004 at 6:22-
`
`7:1; 14:12:18). This basis is unpersuasive. The only actual structure corresponding to
`
`the “means for transmitting power” relied upon by Apple are so-called blade contactors
`
`in the primary module. Ex. 1004 at 2:4-9; 3:14-20; 11:20-25. The provision of a
`
`charge across blade connectors by the primary module when the headset is attached
`
`does not make Bohbot’s headset a switching device. Apple assumes inactivity on
`
`the part of Bohbot’s primary module prior to the attachment of the headset, but this
`
`assumption is unwarranted and not supported by any disclosure from Bohbot. All
`
`Bohbot discloses is the passive transmission of power across contacting blade
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`connectors. No alleged “change of state” of the headset or the primary module is
`
`reported and there is no reason to conclude (and a POSITA would not conclude)
`
`that any “switching” has taken place.
`
`Apple’s similar, yet also unpersuasive, second argument for a “switching
`
`device” is that “the primary module includes [s] data storage unit that receives data
`
`‘when the detachable [headset] is in contact with the primary module.’” Pet, 12-13 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004 at 7:16-27; 14:19-24). Once again, the only actual structure corresponding to
`
`the “means for data exchange” relied upon by Apple are the blade contactors. Ex. 1004
`
`at 2:4-9; 3:14-20; 11:20-25. And, once again, the passive acceptance of data across
`
`blade connectors by the primary module does not amount to Bohbot’s headset
`
`constituting a switching device.
`
`Further, what Bohbot actually discloses is that the headset is a conduit for
`
`data between the mobile telephone and the primary module when the mobile
`
`telephone is transmitting data and when the blade connectors of the headset and the
`
`primary module are connected. Ex. 1004 at 7:16-22. Thus, on this “receives data”
`
`issue, the headset is merely a conduit for data that is passively transmitted across
`
`blade connectors.
`
`Apple’s third, and also unpersuasive, argument for a “switching device” is
`
`that “the miniature device comprises[] means to detect the presence of the
`
`detachable headset 20 on the primary module 18,” which make it possible to
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`activate or deactivate either of the microphones 25 and 26.” Pet. p. 35 (quoting Ex.
`
`1004, 10:20-11:4, 6:8-9). However, neither Apple nor Bohbot provide any details
`
`for the relied upon “means to detect,” including what it consists of, what it
`
`specifically does, or whether it resides on detachable headset 20 or primary module
`
`18. Absent such details, one cannot conclude that a switching device is present.
`
`Additionally, Apple’s assumption that all aspects of Bohbot’s Fig. 3
`
`embodiment would also be found in Bohbot’s Fig. 2 embodiment is unfounded and
`
`unpersuasive. Apple’s attempt to pick and choose between the different Fig. 2 and
`
`Fig. 3 embodiments is improper given that Bohbot presents the Fig. 2 and Fig. 3
`
`embodiments as alternative embodiments not as ones to be mixed and matched. Ex.
`
`1004 at 9:13-16.
`
`None of the Bohbot disclosures relied upon by Apple teach, or even remotely
`
`suggest, the switching functionality that Apple argues.
`
`Second, Bohbot does not disclose a switching device “configured to activate,
`
`deactivate or send into hibernation the portable electronic device.” Apple alleges
`
`that this element is met because Bohbot’s headset 31 in Fig. 3 is a “switching
`
`device” and because it allegedly activates or deactivates, by means unknown, the
`
`primary module 30, namely its microphone, in the manners already addressed
`
`above. Pet. at 27-29. For similar reasons noted above, Bohbot not disclose that the
`
`alleged switching device is “configured to activate, deactivate or send into
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`hibernation the portable electronic device.”
`
`Third, the combination of Bohbot and Gundlach does not teach or suggest
`
`the primary module, i.e., the alleged electronic device of the challenged claims, has
`
`a recessed area configured to correspond to complementary surface elements on the
`
`headset, i.e., the alleged switching device. Apple advances one reason as to why a
`
`POSITA would make the Bohbot-Gundlach combination; namely, that a POSITA
`
`would have combined Bohbot with Gundlach to provide Bohbot’s primary module
`
`with a contoured recess for retaining the headset in position therein to provide
`
`“robust protection” for the headset. Pet. at 7-8. Apple’s rationale for the asserted
`
`combination is unconvincing, and to a POSITA, would be greatly outweighed by
`
`countervailing considerations.
`
`Fourth, the combination of Bohbot and Gundlach does not render obvious that
`
`“when coupled, the second case functions to protect the first case.” Apple’s
`
`argument for the combination of Bohbot and Gundlach rendering obvious the “when
`
`coupled, the second case functions to protect the first case,” element of claim 1
`
`depends entirely upon the fictional Bohbot primary module modified to include a
`
`“contoured recess,” Pet. at 27-28. Thus, for at least the same reasons that the
`
`electronic device comprises a recessed area is not rendered obvious (see above), this
`
`element is not rendered obvious either.
`
`Fundamentally, Apple’s analysis uses hindsight to try to re-engineer a
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`fictional version of a Bohbot device at odds with the teachings of Bohbot for the
`
`sole purpose of matching Bohbot-Gundlach with the elements of claim 1, without
`
`any analysis or persuasive reasoning that Bohbot combined with Gundlach renders
`
`claim 1 obvious as a whole.
`
`The Petition and the hindsight theories espoused therein have numerous other fatal
`
`flaws that add to the lack their lack of merit.
`
`Apple’s fallback argument at Ground 2A is that Diebel supplies the switching
`
`device hibernating the electronic device element for which Apple must sense weakness
`
`in its Ground 1A arguments. The only aspect allegedly added by Diebel is the
`
`hibernation from an extended sleep mode. However, a POSITA would have no reason
`
`or motivation to make the suggested combination for multiple reasons, including because
`
`Bohbot evidences no need for, or benefit from, such an extended sleep mode for the
`
`primary module which needs to stay active to function as Bohbot intended such as to
`
`interface with the phone and provide incoming call notifications, and because Bohbot is
`
`concerned with, and indeed seeks to address, the issue of low batteries in the headset, not
`
`in the primary module.
`
`For these and further reasons as discussed below, the Board should confirm
`
`the patentability of the challenged claims.
`
` II. BACKGROUND.
`
`A. Overview of the ‘020 Patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`The ‘021 Patent discloses switching devices have functions such as activating,
`
`deactivating and hibernating electronic devices such as cell phones, smartphones,
`
`tablet computers and laptop computers. For example, the switching device 2401
`
`shown in FIGs. 24 and 25, reproduced below, includes magnets 2504 to activate,
`
`deactivate, or hibernate a tablet computer 2400. Ex. 1001, 17:63-67.
`
`
`
`Aspects of disclosed embodiments of the invention comprise a switching
`
`device selectively coupled to the front of a portable electronic device. Id., 17:63-67.
`
`Aspects of disclosed embodiments of the invention further comprise a
`
`switching device that activates or deactivates an electronic device by employing a
`
`magnet, the switching device having a body surrounding the magnet and at least one
`
`surface non-abrasive to the electronic device. Id., 4:8-18.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Aspects of disclosed embodiments of the invention further comprise a case of
`
`the switching device functioning to protect an electronic device's primary case. See,
`
`e.g., Id., 2:39-40; and FIG. 5A, reproduced below.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`
`
`Excerpts from the prosecution history for the ‘020 patent are at Ex. 1002.
`
`Apple does not appear to contend that anything relevant to claim construction or
`
`patentability in this proceeding occurred during prosecution of the ‘020 patent.
`
`Gwee is not presently relying upon anything from prosecution of the ‘020 patent,
`
`besides the mutually assumed August 5, 2011 priority date (see Ex. 2001, 7), for
`
`purposes of this Response.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’020 patent (a
`
`“POSITA”) would have had either a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer science, or mechanical engineering with some level of post-baccalaureate
`
`electronic device or system design experience, or someone with an equivalent level
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`of experience and training through other means. Ex. 2001, 19. Superior education
`
`might be able to compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.
`
`Ex. 2001, 19.
`
`Use of the phrase “at least” in Apple’s definition of a POSITA, Pet., 6, leaves
`
`the actual educational and other experience of a POSITA in doubt because it
`
`encompasses someone of greater education, training, and skill than a POSITA and
`
`could even include an expert in the field. Ex. 2001, 20. As such, Apple’s definition
`
`of a POSITA is of questionable assistance in understanding the true qualifications
`
`of the POSITA and how such a person would understand and employ the teachings
`
`of the various references cited in the petition. Ex. 2001, 20.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Gwee has assigned the claim terms their plain and ordinary meanings as a
`
`POSITA would have understood them in the context of the ‘020 patent, unless
`
`otherwise noted herein.
`
`V. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS
`
`A petition must be judged as it is written. The Board may not overlook flaws
`
`in the petition or reformulate its challenges. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct.
`
`1348, 1353, 1355 (2018). Obviousness challenges must include “some articulated
`
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Apple “may not
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply
`
`deficiencies in its factual basis.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
`
`Additionally, the modification or combination must not “require a substantial
`
`reconstruction and redesign of the elements” in a reference or “a change in the basic
`
`principles under which [a reference] was designed to operate.” In re Ratti, 270 F.2d
`
`810, 813 (CCPA 1959). Nor can the modification or combination render a reference
`
`unsatisfactory or “inoperable for its intended purpose.” In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
`
`902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`
`
`Last but not least, obviousness cannot be established by hindsight
`
`combination to produce the claimed invention. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
`
`As demonstrated below, claim 1 is not obvious in view of the proposed
`
`Bohbot-Gundlach combination. Further, because all of the remaining challenged
`
`claims depend from claim 1, each respective dependent claim is not unpatentable
`
`in view of the Bohbot-Gundlach combination for at least the same reasons as claim
`
`1.
`
`A. GROUND 1A—Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 16, and 19 are not obvious in
`
`view of Bohbot and Gundlach.
`
`1. Overview of Bohbot
`
`Bohbot is directed to an “accessory in the form of a miniature communication
`
`device, intended for the implementation of short-range mobile telephone features.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Ex. 1004, 1/2-5. A “particularly advantageous” feature is “for a user to make
`
`telephone calls without having to hold the telephone in one hand to bring it to his ear
`
`when the user is driving a vehicle.” Ex. 1004, 1/7-9. Another “useful” advantage of
`
`such an accessory is that it “frees the user's hands.” Ex. 1004, 1/9-12. Bohbot notes
`
`a drawback of existing headsets in that “it is not easy to quickly find this type of
`
`headset during an incoming call, for example, within a bag.” Ex. 1004, 2/9-13.
`
`Bohbot “starts from the observation that it would be useful to have a device
`
`that makes it possible to implement only the features that are useful on a daily basis
`
`[to] allow a user to leave his/her telephone in his/her bag or pocket, protected from
`
`impact and thefts, but without impairing the necessary features.” Ex. 1004, 2:19-24.
`
`Thus, Bohbot’s invention relates to a miniature communication device,
`
`intended for the implementation of short-range mobile telephone features. Ex. 1004,
`
`2:25-27.
`
`Bohbot’s miniature device is hung on the outside of a bag, and it
`
`communicates with the telephone which remains, most of the time, inside the bag.
`
`Ex. 1004, 4:22-27.
`
`During a telephone conversation, the user may choose to bring the entire
`
`miniature device to his ear, or to detach the headset from the primary 5 module, and
`
`put it on his/her ear. Ex. 1004, 5:1-5.
`
`Bohbot teaches that in order to limit the use of the mobile telephone itself as
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`much as possible, it is useful for the miniature device to be able to allow
`
`implementation of a maximum of features, however, without exceeding a certain
`
`size. Ex. 1004, 5:19-22.
`
`The device comprises means for transmitting power, namely blade contacts,
`
`from the primary device to the secondary device when the detachable headset is in
`
`contact with the primary module. Ex. 1004, 6:25-7:1.
`
`A user may choose to wear the headpiece or the entire device 16 on his/her
`
`ear. Ex. 1004, 10:12-16.
`
`2. Overview of Gundlach.
`
`Gundlach relates to a device that when in a first configuration, such as when
`
`expanded, becomes a wireless mono or stereo headset and when in a second
`
`configuration, such as when collapsed, stores and charges in a host device such as a
`
`laptop computer or cell phone. Ex. 1005, [0002].
`
`When collapsed, Gundlach’s earpiece may be situated in a plane with the
`
`housing of the headset creating a product thickness of, e.g., about 5 mm or less. Ex.
`
`1005, [0056]. The relatively thin shape allows the headset to be stored and charged
`
`in a portable cradle, or it may be charged with a mini USB charger. Ex. 1005, [0056],
`
`[0066]. The portable cradle may be a holder, clip, case or card that fits inside a
`
`standard expansion slot conforming to any expansion slot standard including, for
`
`example, PCMCIA and Expresscard. Ex. 1005, [0056], [0070].
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`B. Apple’s reasons for combining Bohbot and Gundlach are, to a
`
`POSITA, unfounded and unpersuasive.
`
`Apple’s expert Dr. Cooperstock asserts that, A POSITA would have seen a
`
`need for elaboration and description of design options which would have led to
`
`Gundlach. Ex. 1003, 33. This assertion lacks merit and is merely contrived through
`
`hindsight. Ex. 2001, 95. Bohbot disclosure, which serves Bohbot’s aims, is of a
`
`detachable headset magnetically coupled to the surface of a primary module in a
`
`fashion that the headset is readily available for use. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 1:3-5, 2:25-
`
`27, 3:4-5, 9:19-21, 6:22-7:1, 7:16-27, 10:20-11:6, 14:12-24, Figs. 1a, 1b; Ex. 2001,
`
`95. No POSITA reading Bohbot would deem there to be any “limitations” on this
`
`disclosure concerning storage of the headset (indeed, would not see the desire of
`
`placing the headset inside a case where it is not readily available for use) and, if
`
`anything, would instead conclude that the magnetic coupling described by Bohbot
`
`serves the function of keeping the headset attached to the primary module yet readily
`
`accessible quite well. Ex. 2001, 95.
`
`Since the headset is meant to be readily accessible in the event the user
`
`receives or wishes to place a call, using a magnetic coupling to the surface of a
`
`primary module as described by Bohbot keeps the headset well secured against
`
`inadvertent loss while at the same time providing for its ready use. Ex. 2001, 95. It
`
`is hard to imagine a more suitable mechanism for serving Bohbot’s purpose and
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`certainly a POSITA would not have thought it necessary to track down alternatives,
`
`and especially ones that put the headset in a recess or case and not readily available
`
`for use, as suggested by Apple. Ex. 2001, 95.
`
`Apple asserts that a POSITA would have been motivated to add Gundlach’s
`
`contoured recess to Bohbot “to provide robust protection for the headset” to allow it
`
`to “nestle in place.” Pet., 7. This assertion is vague because it does not specify which
`
`Gundlach “contoured recess” is being referenced. Ex. 2001, 96. A POSITA
`
`reviewing Gundlach would understand that all of its contoured recesses appear to
`
`contain the entire earpiece, making its surface flush with the recessed device, see,
`
`for example, Figs. 11b, 12a, 13b and 18b:
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001, 96.
`
`A POSITA would understand the desire for Gundlach to deeply embed its
`
`earpieces in their container since, as noted above, the entire container is intended to
`
`fit into an expansion slot. Ex. 2001, 97. In such an arrangement it would be desirable
`
`not to have any exposed edges which may catch as the container is placed in the
`
`expansion slot. Ex. 2001, 97.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`A first reason why a POSITA would not be motivated to combine is that the
`
`reasons for Gundlach’s deep recesses are not applicable to Bohbot. Ex. 2001, 97.
`
`Second, Bohbot’s magnetic attachments “are, on the one hand, such that they
`
`make attachment and detachment easy for the communication device user and on the
`
`other hand, they are powerful enough to make an effective attachment possible.” Ex.
`
`1004, 3:26-4:3. Bohbot already “avoid[s] … an untimely detachment that would
`
`lead to loss of the headset.” Ex. 1004, 4:3-5. A POSITA would appreciate that
`
`Bohbot provides all the attaching means needed or desired, and would have no
`
`motivation to seek out Gundlach or to add Gundlach’s recess. Ex. 2001, 99-100, 129.
`
`Gundlach’s deep recesses would be unsuitable for the easy and quick detachment
`
`needed by Bohbot.
`
`Third, Bohbot teaches that its headset should be able to be used “without
`
`having to hold the telephone in one hand to bring it to his ear when the user is driving
`
`a vehicle.” Ex. 1004, 1/7-9; Ex. 2001, 98. A POSITA would not want to have to dig
`
`out the headset from a Gundlach-inspired recess (or closed clamshell case, see
`
`below), especially with one hand, and especially while using the other hand to carry
`
`a purse, hold a mobile phone, drive a vehicle, etc. Ex. 2001, 98, 130-131. In
`
`circumstances surrounding the use of the headset described by Bohbot, a recess
`
`becomes a hinderance, not a solution. Ex. 2001, 98, 130-131.
`
`Fourth, a POSITA would not add a recess for the headset to the primary
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`module because it would then become difficult to remove the headset with one hand,
`
`especially when holding a purse, Ex. 2001, 130-131, as illustrated in Fig. 1a:
`
`
`
`or if the primary module was clipped to a shoulder strap, as also taught by Bohbot,
`
`Ex. 1005, 4:27; Ex. 1022, 131.
`
`Fifth, Bohbot notes a drawback of existing headsets in that “it is not easy to
`
`quickly find this type of headset during an incoming call…” Ex. 1004, 2/9-13. A
`
`POSITA would not want to have to dig a headset out from a recess with one hand
`
`because it make it more difficult and time consuming to remove the headset from
`
`the primary module. Ex. 2001, 132-133; see also Ex. 1003, 150-155.
`
`C. Analysis of Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 16, and 19
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`In accordance with the above analysis, a POSITA would have not been
`
`motivated to make the alleged Bohbot-Gundlach combination. In any event, to a
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`POSITA, Apple’s proposed Bohbot-Gundlach combination does not render claim 1
`
`obvious, as noted below.
`
`1[a] a portable switching device coupled to a portable electronic device;
`
`To a POSITA, the Bohbot-Gundlach combination does not render element
`
`1[a] obvious, including because element 1[a]’s “switching device” is not met by
`
`Bohbot-Gundlach. Ex. 2001, 102.
`
`Apple’s theory appears to be that Bohbot’s headset 20 is a switching device
`
`and its primary module 18 is an electronic device, or that headset 31 (as modified by
`
`Apple to have a microphone and speaker on its back cover) is a switching device and
`
`primary module 30 is an electronic device. Ex. 1003, 42-49; Ex. 2001, 103. Apple
`
`appears to contend that a switching device is a device that has a causal connection,
`
`even if the means of the causal connection is unknown, with any “transition” of any
`
`“state change” in an electronic device. Ex. 1003, 42; Ex. 2001, 103.
`
`Apple’s theory also appears to be that Bohbot’s headset is a switching device
`
`based upon Bohbot’s disclosure of power from the primary module being transferred
`
`to the headset across electrical contacts 35a/b when they are touching. Ex. 1003, 43;
`
`Ex. 2001, 104.
`
`To a POSITA, Apple’s conclusions again fail to account for, among other
`
`things, the switching aspect of a switching device. Ex. 2001, 105.
`
`To a POSITA, Apple appears to be relying upon Bohbot’s disclosure of a
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`passive transmission of current across contacting blade connectors. Ex. 2001, 106.
`
`Apple has no explanation for how passive transmission of current by Bohbot’s
`
`primary module would show Bohbot’s headset to be a switching device. Ex. 2001,
`
`106.
`
`To a POSITA, Bohbot merely discloses a direct current (“DC”) flowing across
`
`conductive contacts 35a/b. Ex. 2001, 107. A POSITA would understand that DC is
`
`the continuous movement of electrons from an area of negative (−) charges to an
`
`area of positive (+) charges through a conducting material such as a metal wire. A
`
`POSITA also understands that the electricity moving through a wire or other
`
`conductor consists of its voltage (V), current (I) and resistance (R). Voltage is
`
`potential energy, current is the amount of electrons flowing through the wire, and
`
`resistance is the friction force on the electron flow. Ex. 2001, 107. One way that a
`
`POSITA would commonly understand voltage is to think of the flow of water
`
`through a hose. Ex. 2001, 107. A potential or pressure builds up at one end of a wire,
`
`due to an excess of negatively charged electrons. Ex. 2001, 107. The pressure causes
`
`the electrons to move through the wire to the area of positive charge. Ex. 2001, 107.
`
`This potential energy is called voltage. Ex. 2001, 107.
`
`A POSITA thus understands that DC current passes across conductive
`
`contacts 35a/b of Bohbot when they are in contact, and that voltage is what drives
`
`the DC current. Ex. 2001, 108.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`A POSITA would not conclude that Bohbot’s headset is a switching device
`
`based upon the disclosure from Bohbot relied upon by Apple, including because a
`
`POSITA would not equate one contact touching another contact to complete a DC
`
`circuit with the switching aspect of a switching device. Ex. 2001, 109. There is no
`
`switching from one “state” to another of the primary module as Apple alleges. Ex.
`
`2001, 109.
`
`Apple contends that before such contact between the detachable headset and
`
`the primary module a power storage device of the primary module is inactive. But
`
`this is nowhere described by Bohbot, and the voltage or “pressure” available for
`
`charging the detachable headset is always available at the blade contacts. Ex. 2001,
`
`109. No “state change,” which appears to be the touchstone of Apple’s assertions of
`
`switching, of the primary module occurs when the detachable headset comes into
`
`contact with it, as the means for supplying power to the detachable headset (the
`
`charging voltage) was always present at the blade contacts even when the detachable
`
`headset was not attached to the primary module. Ex. 2001, 109. An analogy might
`
`be when a person plugs a lamp into a wall socket. The lamp lights up because power
`
`flows between the receptacle of the wall socket and the blades of the lamp’s plug,
`
`but there was no state change of the wall outlet or any other element of the household
`
`electrical circuits. Plugging in the lamp did not cause anythi