Paper No. 53
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Wednesday, May 25, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Wednesday, May 25, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
`
`WALTER RENNER, ESQUIRE
`DAVID HOLT, ESQUIRE
`JOEL HENRY, ESQUIRE
`FISH & RICARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue Southwest
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`202-783-5070
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MARK KNEDEISEN, ESQUIRE
`LAUREY MURRAY, ESQUIRE
`BRIAN BOZZO, ESQUIRE
`K&L GATES LLP
`210 6th Avenue
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
`412-355-6500
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, May 25,
`2022, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
` (Proceedings begin at 1:00 p.m.)
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Very good. Welcome. Good
`day. This is -- first of all, can everybody hear me?
` MR. HOLT: Yes, Your Honor.
` MR. BOZZO: We can.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Very good. Thank you.
`Okay. This is the hearing for IPR2021-00592, Petitioner is
`Apple Inc. Patent Owner is Koss Corporation. The challenged
`patent is U.S. Patent No. 10,469,934. We are on a video
`conference here. So, keep that in mind, which I'm sure is not
`that hard.
` I'm Judge Anderson. I'm joined by Judges Scanlon
`and McKone. With respect to demonstrative exhibits, we have
`them. And when you are using them to supplement your
`argument, please refer to the slide number so we can follow
`the arguments. We also have all the pleadings available to
`us, papers filed in the case. So, if it becomes necessary to
`look at that, we can do so, as well.
` Each party will have 60 minutes to present its
`argument. Now, Patent Owner is granted an additional 15
`minutes during which Lead Practitioner, Brian Paul Bozzo --
`and I know a Bozzo. So, I hope that's the correct
`pronunciation. You'll have to correct me if it's not. He is
`permitted -- Mr. Bozzo is permitted to present all or any part
`of Patent Owner's argument. So that makes Patent Owner have a
`total of 75 minutes.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
` Petitioner has the burden to show unpatentability
`and will proceed first, followed by Patent Owner. Petitioner
`may reserve time for rebuttal. Patent Owner may likewise
`present its opposition to Petitioner's position and may
`reserve time for a surrebuttal.
` We do not have a timer available like we might in
`the normal course of a hearing. So, we're going to keep track
`of the time, but you should also, in your -- as part of your
`responsibilities, be aware of the time, as well. We do try to
`do that, and typically we're pretty much on it.
` If there is an objection you have to the other
`party's argument, please hold that objection until the time
`you make your argument, keep track of it, and then explain why
`you believe the argument was objectionable. Typically, one
`argument might be beyond the scope of the papers in this
`proceeding. In the final decision, if there is any
`objection, we will take care of it then.
` And that reminds me, as near -- as I understand it,
`there are no objections to the demonstratives. And I'm just
`going to proceed on that basis unless one of you correct me.
`At this time, let's have Counsel introduce themselves,
`starting with Petitioner. Who's here for Petitioner, please?
` MR. HOLT: David Holt, Your Honor, from Fish &
`Richardson.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Mr. Holt, welcome. Patent Owner,
`who's here?
` MR. BOZZO: Brian Bozzo from K&L Gates. And in the
`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
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`room with me is also Mark Knedeisen and Renae Gabriel (ph).
` JUDGE ANDERSON: If it's -- and, Mr. Bozzo, welcome.
`You're the sort of party of honor here -- person of honor here
`as LEAP practitioner. Do you know how much of the argument
`you're going to present so that we might be kind of prepared
`for how this gets divided up?
` MR. BOZZO: Substantially all of it, Judge Anderson.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Very good. With that, Mr.
`Holt, you are on deck and ready to go. Would you like to
`reserve some time for rebuttal?
` MR. HOLT: Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to reserve 30
`minutes, please.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. 30 minutes. So, you get 30
`minutes of argument here. We'll time that out and try to let
`you know when there's just a few minutes left of your opening
`argument. With that, go ahead.
` MR. HOLT: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the
`Board, my name is David Holt, and I'll presenting on behalf of
`Petitioner Apple with respect to the '934 patent today. The
`'934 patent is the final in a series of three patents related
`to wireless headphones that have been challenged by Apple and
`for which IPR has been instituted. The two other proceedings
`involve patents with the same specification and involve some
`of these same prior art references.
` Those are IPR2021-00305 related to the '325 patent
`and IPR2021-00305 -- I'm sorry -- that's a different number --
`related to the '982 patent. I'll have to get the number for
`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
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`the '982 patent. I don't think I have that. Today's case
`involves different bases references than the previous
`hearings. So, while some of the issues you'll be hearing about
`today will sound familiar to those previous discussions that
`we had in those other cases, we'll have a somewhat new context
`to consider them.
` As we see on slide 2, the main references we'll be
`discussing today are the Haupt and Seshadri references.
`During our hearing related to the '982 patent in April, we
`discussed the Haupt reference a bit, but we'll discussing it
`in greater detail today. As you see, we also have the Rosener
`and Paulson references that were also at issue in those
`earlier proceedings. So, Judges McKone and Anderson, you --
`you're likely a bit familiar with those references in light of
`those prior conversations.
` On slide 3, we have the agenda, including the six
`topics at issue in the proceeding. We have a fair number of
`slides, but really, there's one main point that's likely to
`take up most of our time, which is right at the top. How the
`combination of Haupt and Seshadri render the independent claim
`obvious. And we'll jump right into that.
` Koss doesn't want to reach the merits as to claim 1
`of the '934 patent. Instead, Koss wants Your Honors to copy
`and paste from an institution decision in a different
`proceeding involving a different patent, the '025 patent.
`That patent had a materially narrower scope. And that record,
`having not resulted in a trial, was not fully developed, as is
`6
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`the record here.
` As we'll see, the '934 patent claims only one of the
`three devices recited by the '025 system claim, the headphone
`assembly. This is why the combination of Haupt and Seshadri
`set forth in the '934 petition in subsequent briefing is all
`about the connectivity of a headphone assembly, the claimed
`device. We see this in slide 5.
` The preamble of claim 1 of the '934 patent sets
`forth that this claim is to a headphone assembly. Each of the
`subsequent limitations recite components of that assembly.
`Not a broader system that includes devices beyond that
`assembly. Let's go ahead and look through the claim together.
`It's positively recites, earphones, an antenna, a wireless
`communication circuit, a processor, a memory, a rechargeable
`battery, and a microphone. These are the components of the
`headphone assembly.
` While some of the limitations recite -- relate to
`other devices, like a mobile digital audio player or remote,
`network-connected server, those other devices are distinct
`from the device that's the focus of this claims, which is the
`headphone assembly. So, with that scope in mind, let's look at
`the proposed combination of Haupt and Seshadri with respect to
`these '934 claims, which is what Koss wants to avoid Your
`Honors actually considering.
` Jumping to slide 15, we get an overview of what that
`combination looks like, and we see that it rightly focuses on
`modification of Haupt's headphones and is not about any
`7
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`importation of mobile digital audio player from Seshadri as
`Koss erroneously alleges.
` The Petitioner explained that Haupt already teaches
`receiving audio from various types of servers via wireless
`local area network or WLAN. You're going to see that uses
`kind of throughout all of these references, WLAN. Yet it
`would have been obvious based on the further teachings of
`Seshadri to connect to local devices via either WLAN, as
`taught by Haupt, or ad hoc network. The combination is
`clearly about the connectivity capabilities of the Haupt
`headphone assembly. The teachings of Seshadri further extend
`the already extensive capabilities of Haupt's headphone
`assembly.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: So --
` MR. HOLT: So -- go ahead.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Mr. Holt -- so what -- what's the
`combination you're relying on for the -- for this remote
`server -- the request to the remote server, which is the
`limitation 1(i). Is it Seshadri -- is it Haupt alone or Haupt
`and Seshadri?
` MR. HOLT: Well, Your Honor, we think the connection
`with the server is in Haupt. How the server is implicated
`there is primarily in Haupt, but it can possibly be through
`the combination with Seshadri. But only in the sense that
`Seshadri brings in the concept of how the Haupt headphones
`would connect to that local device in Haupt. So it would be
`with the ad hoc connection, which is what Seshadri refers to
`8
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`as a piconet.
` So, I can actually walk through those references and
`kind of show you what Haupt and Seshadri each teach with
`respect to that, if that's okay with Your Honor?
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Well, no.
` MR. HOLT: Okay.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: I want to ask something.
` MR. HOLT: Sure.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: So Seshadri -- neither of these
`references specifically recite a digital audio player,
`correct?
` MR. HOLT: Not with that phrase, but I would argue
`that they both teach digital audio players.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Let's hear that argument.
` MR. HOLT: Okay. If you go to slide -- let's take a
`look at slide 11. So, at the top, we see an excerpt from the
`petition where it's explained that Haupt primarily focused its
`teachings on communications with a generic local or remote
`server. But we've been talking just now in the questioning
`about this idea of a local device.
` And actually, Haupt does teach that. In the
`petition, as you see highlighted in red, we noted that, "It
`was well-known in the art that wireless headphones like
`Haupt's could connect to a local digital media player and
`reproduce music stored thereon." And we cited to APPLE-1004.
`That's Haupt.
` And so, if you look at the bottom of this slide, you
`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
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`see some of the discussion about what Haupt says about it --
`the connection of its headphones with those local audio
`players. So Haupt teaches that because the WLAN headphones
`have been assigned an IP address and are an active network
`element, they can be connected to any other device with access
`to the network, like a local personal PC. That's what we see
`here in slide 11.
` Highlighted in yellow, we see Haupt treating the
`access of a local device like a PC in the manner as it treats
`access to remote server. That's because, from the perspective
`of Haupt's headphones, it's the same. There's nothing in this
`record to establish that, as an active network element with an
`IP address, Haupt's headphones communicate with the local PC
`any differently (sic) than they would communicate with the
`remote server.
` And as we can see in yellow, Haupt treats those two
`things the same. The sentence talks about accessing either
`that local PC for audio files or a music server.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: So, your argument is that these
`other local devices are the digital audio player, right?
` MR. HOLT: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: I lost my train of thought. Go
`ahead.
` MR. HOLT: I'll note that while we're still on this
`slide, what we were just talking about in yellow is the basis
`for what we see in red that's underlined. Haupt is teaching
`that quote, "Consequently, all of the functions within the
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`reception range of both the private, as well as the private
`WLAN network can be used by the headphones or headset without
`additional accessories."
` So, if any device is connected to the network and
`assigned an IP address, Haupt's headphones gain access to that
`device and can treat that device like a server for audio.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. So, I remembered where I was.
`Do we need, therefore, to construe digital audio player in
`order to resolve this case?
` MR. HOLT: No, Your Honor. I don't believe that you
`do. I think it's undisputed on this record that the PC in
`Haupt, or if you look at slide 12, for instance, there's
`discussion of other audio players in Haupt. Like a client's
`C1, and they give the example of a PDA or a pocket PC that
`plays back audio. I mean, that language in and of itself is
`teaching that the headphones are capable of being connected to
`this client device, which has -- which is, again, a PDA, and
`it's playing back audio. That is a digital audio player.
` And a PDA or pocket PC is mobile. There's no
`arguments in this record that a PDA or pocket PC wouldn't be
`mobile. So, we think that these teachings are straight on with
`the words of the claim itself. There's no construction
`necessary.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: So, a digital audio player is not a
`term of art that defines it in a way that would preclude these
`other devices from being a digital audio player. Is that your
`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
`27
`
`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
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
` MR. HOLT: Yes, Your Honor. And I would say there's
`no arguments in this record about any of these things not
`being digital audio players.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay.
` JUDGE SCANLON: Excuse me, Mr. Holt. This is Judge
`Scanlon. Referencing your slide 11 and the language from
`Haupt that you've highlighted there. So, the personal PC,
`you're saying that's distinct from the servers that are
`disclosed in Haupt?
` MR. HOLT: I -- no. I would say that it's a type of
`the server that's disclosed in Haupt. Haupt, with respect to
`figure 1 -- and this is -- a picture of it is shown on slide
`10. They talk about local servers and public kind of remote
`servers. And I think when you look at Haupt in its entirety
`and the way that we've talked about it in the petition, the
`remote server might be something -- when we look at slide 11
`again, where it says, "Music server."
` A music server might be something like a remote
`server that's connected to the internet that allows the user
`to store a large amount of their audio files. And that's
`talked about in Haupt. That's in the background section of
`Haupt. It talks about how its servers can be these large
`internet-connected servers that give kind of wide access to a
`user's large audio file library.
` But you can also have these kind of local private
`servers that will be on your private WLAN. And those servers
`can be things like this personal PC or, really, what Haupt is
`12
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`teaching is, it's anything that's connected to the access
`point and assigned an IP address. So it can be the PC we're
`seeing here on slide 11, or it could be that PDA or pocket PC
`we see on slide 12.
` As long as it has that IP address in the local
`network, it can serve audio to the headphones because the
`headphones then gain access to that device via that WLAN
`connection and network.
` JUDGE SCANLON: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. HOLT: All right. So, what we've been talking
`about so far as how Haupt talks about the ability of its
`headphones to connect to these devices, whether they be local,
`like a PC or that pocket PC PDA that we saw on slide 12 or a
`remote server, which is kind of a lot of the discussion in
`Haupt is this idea of getting to the remote server. While
`kind of the big server that we were just talking about that
`has your entire library, and it's connected to the internet
`and that you can kind of access anywhere.
` But WLAN is not the only or even the best way to
`connect to local devices. And that's what we get from
`Seshadri. If we look at slide 14, Seshadri compliments the
`teachings of Haupt. Like Haupt, Seshadri also describes
`connecting your wireless headphones with local devices, but it
`says you might want to have more flexibility than just using
`WLAN like Haupt talks about.
` As we see in paragraph 43 of Seshadri in the lower
`left, Seshadri teaches that there should be a preference for
`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
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`using a piconet to connect to these local devices. Seshadri
`teaches that a piconet is an ad hoc network like that recited
`in the claims of '934 patent. And Seshadri gives Bluetooth as
`an example of a piconet.
` What we see in that last highlighted sentence of
`paragraph 43 on the lower left is you want to start by trying
`to set up a piconet with these local devices and only
`transition to a WLAN if you can't establish a piconet.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: So is this -- are you giving us
`reasons we would look to Seshadri and combine it with Haupt?
` MR. HOLT: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. HOLT: So, you might ask your question, why would
`you look to Seshadri? Why do you want this piconet
`connection? Why is Seshadri talking about preferring piconet
`over WLAN? And the petition explains that. It's battery
`power. If you look at page 11 of the petition and paragraph
`48 of Dr. Cooperstock's original declaration, which is Exhibit
`1003, both of these sections of the record are directly
`discussing the motivation for the combination of Haupt and
`Seshadri.
` We don't have them up here on a slide, but what you
`see if you turn to paragraph 48 of Dr. Cooperstock's
`declaration is, he explains that Bluetooth connections use
`less battery than WLAN connections. And because in any device
`with a battery, power conservation is important, I'm going to
`prefer to use the less power-intensive piconet connection if
`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
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`it's available to me.
` And that's what Seshadri's kind of getting at, is if
`you got both of these radios, effectively, in your device,
`your headphones, which Seshadri discusses, and as we note in
`the petition, so does Haupt, have both of those radios, you're
`actually going to have a preference for using the Bluetooth,
`the piconet if you can because it's less power-intensive.
` On this slide, I'll just note that there's another
`thing we did rely upon Seshadri for, and it also does relate
`to the headphone assembly. And it's this idea that you can
`transition between multiple available audio sources. That's a
`little bit less important for the limitations of the claims
`we're going to be discussing today, but Haupt doesn't really
`deal with what happens when you might have two available audio
`streams coming to your headphones.
` And so Seshadri actually gives details about how to
`deal with that. And we did actually include that, also, in
`the petition, but it is not quite as important, obviously, for
`what we're talking about here.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. And this is Judge McKone. And
`just to be clear, you find the disclosure of a mobile digital
`audio player in Seshadri, correct? And not Haupt?
` MR. HOLT: We found it in Haupt.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. I'm looking at the first --
`I'm looking at your petition to see in the first instance,
`1(b), I think is the first limitation that discusses a mobile
`digital audio player. And on pages 17 and 18 of your
`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
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`petition, it looks like to me like you're citing Seshadri for
`the mobile digital audio player.
` MR. HOLT: Well --
` JUDGE MCKONE: Why am I mistaken?
` MR. HOLT: To be clear, Your Honor, I -- what I
`would say is that that part of the petition is focused on the
`teachings of Seshadri with respect to the connectivity of the
`headphone assembly to an audio player. Because these claims
`are about the headphone assembly. And so Seshadri, as we were
`just describing, is really where we get the teaching that the
`headphones can connect to a mobile digital audio player with,
`for instance, the ad hoc connection in that claim element.
` If you look at that claim element, it's about a
`connection that's an ad hoc connection, which, as we were just
`discussing, really isn't in Haupt. Haupt's about WLAN. And
`so the reason you see Seshadri described in that limitation
`and focused on there is really about the fact that Seshadri is
`where you get the ad hoc connectivity of Haupt's WLAN
`headphone through the combination.
` So, it's not that we were focusing exclusively on
`Seshadri's media players. And, in fact, as we kind of showed
`already on slides, for instance, 11 and 12 at the top, the
`petition in describing the combination is saying that it was
`well-known broadly to connect to all sorts of mobile digital
`audio players. And it cited to Haupt for that concept.
` And so, in that section of the petition you're
`focusing on again, the reason that Seshadri's discussed is
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`about the ad hoc part of it, which comes from Seshadri. It's
`not really intended to say that the mobile digital audio
`player is only the one in Seshadri.
` JUDGE MCKONE: All right. But you don't -- in that
`section, you don't mention that Haupt has any mobile digital audio
`player, correct? And that’s the first instance where mobile digital
`audio player is recited in the claims?
` MR. HOLT: Not in that part of the claim language
`and the application of the art to it, but I would argue that,
`Your Honor, we wouldn't need to because the claim is to the
`headphone assembly, not the mobile digital audio player. So
`we were focused on the capabilities of the headphone assembly,
`which, again, are coming from Seshadri. Not from Haupt.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay.
` MR. HOLT: So, we've kind of talked now through the
`combination as we've, you know, proposed it in the petition.
`And we want to go back to slide 15 again and just kind of ask
`ourselves, where does this leave us? What do we have in light
`of Haupt and Seshadri's combined teachings?
` What we have is, Haupt already teaches that its
`headphone assembly can connect to both remote servers or local
`digital audio players, like a PDA. But as we discussed on the
`other slide, Haupt is primarily focused on accessing those
`devices through WLAN. Seshadri motivates the POSITA to
`connect wireless headphones with local devices using piconet,
`ad hoc connections, instead of WLAN whenever possible because
`that conserves power.
`
`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
`27
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
` So with the headphone assembly of the proposed
`combination, my headphones are going to be able to connect and
`communicate to a remote, network-connected server via WLAN as
`taught by Haupt, or they can connect to local devices,
`preferably via piconet as taught by Seshadri. That's what
`claim 1 of the '934 patent requires. Let's actually look back
`at slide 8 to check that.
` We see at the top this claim is about a headphone
`assembly. Check. That's what Haupt is, and that's what
`Seshadri is, too. It's talking about headphone assembly. We
`see in the second limitation that the antenna of the headphone
`assembly is for receiving wireless signals from a mobile
`digital audio player via one or more ad hoc wireless
`communication links. We got that from Seshadri, as we were
`just discussing, Judge McKone. Because Seshadri is about ad
`hoc wireless communication links. So check. We've got that
`limitation.
` Let's jump down to the second to last limitation,
`and that says, "Wherein the processor is configured to, upon
`activation of a user-control of the headphone assembly,
`initiate transmission of a request to a remote, network-
`connected server." Haupt definitely discloses that. Check.
` Now, this wherein clause also says that the remote,
`network-connected server is in wireless communication with the
`mobile digital audio player, but that's not about the
`headphone assembly. It's about two other devices, the remote
`server and the digital audio player. Unlike in the '025
`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
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`patent, which claims the whole system, including those other
`devices, the '934 patent claims only the headphone assembly.
`Just look at the preamble.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Now, are you arguing that we ought
`not give that additional language patentable weight?
` MR. HOLT: Well, we don't think that it should have
`patentable weight, no, Your Honor. Because it's not about the
`headphone assembly.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Now, is that -- that strikes me as a
`claim construction argument. Did you make any such claim
`construction argument in the petition?
` MR. HOLT: Your Honor, I wouldn't call that a claim
`construction argument. I don't believe that's a claim
`construction argument. I believe that's a claim scope
`argument about how you interpret the scope of device claims,
`like this one, as opposed to system claims, like in '025.
` MR. MCKONE: Now -- okay. Well, if we call it a
`claim scope argument, did you make the argument in your
`petition that the scope of claim 1 does not include this
`additional connection between the mobile -- digital audio
`player and the headphone assembly?
` MR. HOLT: Well --
` JUDGE MCKONE: I'm sorry. In the server?
` MR. HOLT: Sorry, Your Honor. No. In the petition,
`we actually ironically were able to show we believe that there
`is that connection. When you look at Haupt, as we showed in
`slide 12, there is actually disclosure in Haupt of a mobile
`19
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`digital audio player communicating with a server. That is the
`mobile digital audio player in the first client c(1),
`receiving live internet radio. And that is the ability of
`that mobile digital audio player to actually communicate with
`the remote server.
` And this was explained in dealing with this
`limitation also in slide 16 -- if you look at slide 16. The
`explanation is that, you know, again, the link that's relevant
`to the headphone assembly is an ad hoc link involved with the
`mobile digital audio player. And so that's why there's some
`discussion here of Seshadri's base unit, but we talk about how
`it would have been obvious that these audio players themselves
`would be connected to servers. And you see highlighted in the
`last sentence in red, this would have provided a source of
`audio streams for these audio players.
` So the connection to a server, like those servers
`described in Haupt, are -- were talked about in the petition
`both here and again up where we were talking about the
`knowledge of a POSITA with respect to connections to these
`local devices and citing to that section of Haupt that talks
`about its first client c(1) actually communication with the
`server to get this live internet radio.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: So, Mr. Holt, understanding our
`desire to be consistent with -- between our decisions, what --
`and you mentioned earlier that -- the full record, in this
`case, which has gone to a -- this hearing and a trial. What
`is it that has been added to the record that would change the
`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
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`result or exist even if it was before -- at the time of
`institution, that'll -- that would justify us in giving a
`different result than what happened in the '546 and '626, I
`believe -- yeah -- '546 and '626 proceedings? Can you give us
`that information?
` MR. HOLT: Sure, Your Honor. I'll note, as I did in
`the very beginning, that that decision in the '025 case was
`about a different patent with different claims. And we were
`just talking about that a second ago. The -- that particular
`determination involved --
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Okay. So, what is it about
`this claim -- which I think I can read and tell the
`difference. The difference in this claim is that the remote
`server is -- there's a request made to the remote server prior
`to the identical language in the '54 -- in the '025 patent.
`What is it -- does that assist you in making your showing
`here, or how does it if it does?
` MR. HOLT: It does, Your Honor. If you look at our
`slide 64, that slide is the '025 claims. And when you look at
`this claim, a few things will jump out at you. You caught one
`of them. It's a -- it -- you know, this is a system claim.
`It positively recites the headphone assembly, which is the
`only part that's claimed in '934, but it also recites the
`remote, network-connected server and the mobile digital audio
`player. So this is a narrower claim because it actually
`positively recites those as part of the system.
` And what you see is the key language that you've
`21
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2021-00592
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`been focusing on in this claim is recited after the remote,
`network-connected server. And that's because that language is
`limiting
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
