`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