`
`Apple Inc. (Petitioner)
`v.
`Koss Corporation (Patent Owner)
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00600
`U.S. Patent No. 10,298,451
`
`Before Hon. Patrick R. Scanlon, David C. McKone, and Norman H. Beamer
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1032
`Apple v. Koss
`IPR2021-00600
`
`
`
`Table of contents
`
`Background
`
`The ’451 patent
`
`The proposed combination: Scherzer, Subramaniam
`
`Topics for Discussion
`
`1 – The proposed combination is predictable
`
`2 – Scherzer does not teach away
`
`3 - Objective indicia of non-obviousness: no nexus
`
`4
`
`6
`
`18
`
`19
`
`24
`
`33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Instituted grounds
`
`Ground
`
`Obviousness over Scherzer, Subramaniam
`
`Obviousness over Scherzer, Subramaniam, Baxter
`
`Obviousness over Scherzer, Subramaniam, Drader
`
`Obviousness over Scherzer, Subramaniam, Ramey
`
`Obviousness over Scherzer, Subramaniam, Montemurro
`
`Obviousness over Scherzer, Subramaniam, Gupta
`
`* Independent claims noted in red
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`1, 6, 12, 13, 16, 17,
`18, 19, 20
`2, 7-10, 21
`
`3-4
`
`5
`
`11, 15
`
`14
`
`“In its Patent Owner’s Response (‘Response’), Koss ignores these advantages
`and avoids engaging with the actual teachings of the prior art.”
`
`Reply at 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`The ’451 patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`4
`
`
`
`The ’451 patent
`
`“Systems and methods permit a wireless
`device to receive data wirelessly via an
`infrastructure wireless network, without
`physically connecting the wireless device
`to a computer in order to configure it, and
`without having an existing infrastructure
`wireless network for the wireless device to
`connect to. A remote server hosts a website
`that permits a user of the wireless device to
`input via a computer credential data for at
`least one infrastructure wireless network. The
`content access point transmits the credential
`data for the at least one infrastructure
`wireless network to the wireless device via
`the ad hoc wireless network, such that, upon
`receipt of the credential data for the at least
`one infrastructure wireless network, the
`wireless device is configured to connect to
`the at least one infrastructure wireless
`network.”
`
`APPLE-1001 (’451 Patent), Abstract
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`APPLE-1001, Fig. 1
`
`
`
`The proposed combination: Scherzer,
`Subramaniam
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`6
`
`
`
`Scherzer (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2007/0033197)
`
`Petition
`“Scherzer describes systems in which a community of
`registered users can share, through a server, credentials
`used to access each other’s access points.”
`
`Petition at 17
`
`“…in Scherzer’s system, each user is “able to access the
`Internet, its services and information, from a large number of
`locations.”
`
`Petition at 17; APPLE-1004 (Scherzer), [0015], [0020]
`
`…[a] software client enables the user to ‘contact the
`provider's application server in order to obtain access
`information for a location where the user is not able to use
`the user’s own access point’ and gain access to the Internet
`at said location.”
`
`Petition at 19; APPLE-1003 (Cooperstock Declaration), ¶30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`APPLE-1004 at FIG. 4; Petition at 20
`
`
`
`Scherzer (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2007/0033197)
`
`Petition
`“Scherzer describes two techniques of obtaining the
`software client on a new device without requiring access to
`application server 116.”
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`“…obtaining the software client via the mail on a piece
`of storage media.”
`
`“…downloading the software client from a third-party
`web site.”
`
`Petition at 27-28
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“…in scenarios that involve a new device with no present
`Internet connectivity, Scherzer contemplates obtaining the
`software client on the new device using the first technique.
`
`“…this is a cumbersome process that requires the user to
`wait for mail delivery.
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶44 (cited in Petition at 27-28)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`APPLE-1004 at FIG. 4; Petition at 20
`
`
`
`Subramaniam (U.S. Pat. App. No. 2011/0289229)
`
`Petition
`Petition
`“…incorporating Subramaniam’s network
`configuration technique into the Scherzer
`system would have allowed a user to more
`easily configure a new device to obtain the
`access information needed to obtain the
`Scherzer software client.”
`
`Petition at 28-29; APPLE-1003, ¶45
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“Subramanian teaches that wireless
`configuration settings can be exchanged
`between devices ‘us[ing] a shared
`communication medium between [a]
`connected device and an unconnected device
`in order to share the connection settings to
`connect the unconnected device.’”
`APPLE-1003, ¶36 (citing APPLE-1005, Abstract) (cited in Petition at 22-23)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`APPLE-1005 (Subramaniam), FIG. 2; Petition at 19
`
`
`
`The proposed combination
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“…a POSITA would have been
`motivated to combine Scherzer
`and Subramaniam given the
`advantages in the simplified
`process of configuring a new
`device to obtain the Scherzer
`software client.”
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶50; Petition at 32
`
`Petition
`“Two examples…demonstrate
`these advantages.”
`
`Petition at 32
`
`Institution Decision at 31 (citing Petition at 31)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`The proposed combination
`
`Petition
`“Two examples…demonstrate
`these advantages.”
`
`Petition at 32
`
`A) at “a work wireless access point located
`at a user’s business within a business
`park.”
`
`Petition at 32
`
`B) at “another location of the business
`park” where “neither the smartphone nor the
`tablet have the access information
`necessary to connect to any nearby wireless
`access points…”
`
`Petition at 34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`The proposed combination
`
`Example 1: Wireless access point located in user’s business
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“…the user may decide at some
`point to use the tablet to access
`the Internet while at work, which
`would require the tablet to obtain
`access information for the work
`wireless access point.”
`APPLE-1003, ¶51; Petition at 32-33
`
`“…a POSITA would have looked to
`Subramaniam’s technique of
`exchanging access information
`locally between devices, which
`removes the need for the user to
`manually enter access information
`into the tablet. ”
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶51; Petition at 32-33
`
`Institution Decision at 31 (citing Petition at 31)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`The proposed combination
`
`Example 2: Wireless access point located outside user’s business
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`
`“the user is faced with two
`problems”
`1.
`“…neither device has the
`necessary access
`information…”
`
`2.
`
`“the tablet has no cellular
`connection to potentially
`acquire the access information.”
`APPLE-1003, ¶54; Petition at 34-35
`
`?
`
`Institution Decision at 31 (citing Petition at 31)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`The proposed combination
`
`Example 2: Wireless access point located outside user’s business
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“…by incorporating
`Subramaniam’s network
`configuration technique into
`Scherzer, the combined system
`allows both the smartphone and
`the tablet to be registered with
`Scherzer’s service and thereby
`enjoy its benefits.”
`APPLE-1003, ¶56; Petition at 35
`
`“…if the access information were
`obtained on the smartphone, this
`information could be passed to the
`tablet to allow it to download
`the Scherzer software client.”
`APPLE-1003, ¶54; Petition at 34
`
`Institution Decision at 31 (citing Petition at 31)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`The proposed combination
`
`Example 2: Wireless access point located outside user’s business
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“…the combined system allows
`both the smartphone and the tablet
`to be registered with Scherzer’s
`service and thereby enjoy the
`benefit of being able to connect to
`a wireless access point that does
`not belong to the user…”
`
`“…the user is now free to stream
`video or other media on their tablet
`without using an expensive cellular
`data connection and without ever
`having had to manually input
`access information into their
`tablet.”
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶56; Petition at 35
`
`Institution Decision at 31 (citing Petition at 31)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`The proposed combination
`
`Example 2: Wireless access point located outside user’s business
`
`Institution Decision
`“…Petitioner’s example whereby
`one device makes use of this
`capability, and a second device,
`not having cellular access, makes
`use of the Subramaniam transfer
`technique, appears to be realistic
`and appropriate.”
`
`Institution Decision at 34-35
`
`“…Petitioner’s example includes
`provisions for the second device to
`ultimately register with the
`Scherzer-like application server,
`concerns about the fact that
`credentials are provided to that
`device prior to registration are not
`persuasive.”
`
`Institution Decision at 31 (citing Petition at 31)
`
`Institution Decision at 34
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`The proposed combination
`
`Petition
`“…incorporating Subramaniam’s
`network configuration technique into the Scherzer system
`would have allowed a user to more easily configure a new
`device to obtain the access information needed to obtain
`the Scherzer software client.”
`
`Reply
`“With the Scherzer-Subramaniam
`combination, a user could not only
`obtain network credential information
`(using Scherzer’s teachings) on the
`smartphone, but then utilize
`Subramaniam’s automated configuration
`technique to allow the tablet to access
`the Internet without requiring any
`manual entry.”
`
`Petition at 35 (APPLE-1003, ¶56)
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“a POSITA would have also understood
`that providing network credential
`information to a secondary device of a
`registered user (as discussed in each
`of the two examples) is consistent with
`Scherzer’s disclosure.”
`APPLE-1028, ¶64 (cited in Reply at 20)
`
`Reply at 14
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`Three discussion topics
`
`1. The proposed combination is predictable
`
`2. Scherzer does not teach away
`
`3. Objective indicia of non-obviousness: no nexus
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`Three discussion topics
`
`1. The proposed combination is predictable
`
`2. Scherzer does not teach away
`
`3. Objective indicia of non-obviousness: no nexus
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`1. The proposed combination is predictable
`
`1.1) Predictable problem
`Petition
`“..a device is required to be registered
`with Scherzer’s service using a software
`client that allows the device to
`communicate with an application server
`116.”
`
`The registration process “would not be
`feasible” where:
`
`(1) “a new device …does not presently
`have Internet connectivity since it
`has limited or no cellular network
`connectivity”
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“Scherzer describes two techniques of
`obtaining the software client on a new
`device without requiring access to
`application server 116.”
`
`“A POSITA implementing the Scherzer
`system would have been motivated to
`look to other network configuration
`techniques to improve the process of
`configuring a new device to obtain the
`Scherzer software client.”
`
`APPLE-1003 at ¶44
`
`(2) “the user does not have the access
`information necessary to connect to
`nearby Wi-Fi access points.”
`Petition at 27 (citing APPLE-1003,¶44)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`1. The proposed combination is predictable
`
`1.2) Predictable solution
`
`“…a POSITA would have discovered
`that incorporating Subramaniam’s
`network configuration technique into
`the Scherzer system would have
`allowed a user to more easily
`configure a new device to obtain the
`access information needed to obtain
`the Scherzer software client.”
`Petition at 28; APPLE-1003, ¶45
`
`Petition
`“…this technique allows the new device
`to obtain the access information without
`requiring manual entry of network
`access information, the user would not
`be required to remember such
`information and/or manually enter it
`on the new device.”
`
`Petition at 28; APPLE-1003, ¶45
`
`“…it would be still be preferable to use
`Subramaniam’s network configuration
`technique to download the Scherzer
`software client using WiFi network
`connection since this would have been
`cheaper and avoids use of an
`expensive cellular data connection.”
`Petition at 28; APPLE-1003, ¶45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`1. The proposed combination is predictable
`
`1.2) Predictable solution
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`“…the combination provides a
`predictable solution that improves upon
`Scherzer’s techniques of obtaining a
`software client without requiring access to
`application server 116.”
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“The combination provides a predictable
`solution that improves upon Scherzer’s
`techniques of obtaining a software client
`without requiring access to application
`server 116.”
`
`“The Petition explained that a POSITA
`would have understood Scherzer’s
`techniques to be “cumbersome” and
`therefore would have been “motivated to
`look to other network configuration
`techniques to reduce the user
`burden…”
`
`Reply at 19 (citing Petition at 27-28)
`
`APPLE-1028 at ¶50
`
`“Scherzer demonstrates this by recognizing
`that ‘to provide wireless coverage for many
`locations, as, for example, cell phone
`networks do, requires a large infrastructure
`that is expensive.’”
`
`APPLE-1028 at ¶51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`1. The proposed combination is predictable
`
`1.3) No hindsight
`Cooperstock Testimony
`Motivation to combine:
`“…to improve the process
`of configuring a new
`device to obtain the
`Scherzer software client.”
`APPLE-1003 at ¶44 (cited in Petition at 29)
`
`Claim Language
`1. A system comprising:
`a wireless access point;
`an electronic device;
`a mobile computer device that is in communication with the
`electronic device via an ad hoc wireless communication link; and
`one or more host servers that are in communication with the
`mobile computer device via the Internet, wherein the one or more
`host servers receive and store credential data for an infrastructure
`wireless network provided by the wireless access point, wherein:
`the mobile computer device is for transmitting to the
`electronic device, wirelessly via the ad hoc wireless
`communication link between the electronic device and the
`mobile computer device, the credential data for the
`infrastructure wireless network stored by the one or more host
`servers; and
`the electronic device is for, upon receiving the credential
`data for the infrastructure wireless network from the mobile
`computing device, connecting to the wireless access point via
`the infrastructure wireless network using the credential data
`received from the mobile computer device.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE-1001, 8:30-53
`23
`
`
`
`Three discussion topics
`
`1. The proposed combination is predictable
`
`2. Scherzer does not teach away
`
`3. Objective indicia of non-obviousness: no nexus
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`
`
`2. Scherzer does not teach away
`
`2A) Petitioner’s discussion of the proposed combination
`
`“…a POSITA would have discovered
`that incorporating Subramaniam’s
`network configuration technique into
`the Scherzer system would have
`allowed a user to more easily
`configure a new device to obtain the
`access information needed to obtain
`the Scherzer software client.”
`Petition at 28; APPLE-1003, ¶45
`
`Petition
`“…this technique allows the new device
`to obtain the access information without
`requiring manual entry of network
`access information, the user would not
`be required to remember such
`information and/or manually enter it
`on the new device.”
`
`Petition at 28; APPLE-1003, ¶45
`
`“…it would be still be preferable to use
`Subramaniam’s network configuration
`technique to download the Scherzer
`software client using WiFi network
`connection since this would have been
`cheaper and avoids use of an
`expensive cellular data connection.”
`Petition at 28; APPLE-1003, ¶45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`2. Scherzer does not teach away
`
`2B) Patent Owner’s arguments against the proposed combination
`
`POR
`“A POSITA…would not attempt to transmit and use access credentials for a wireless
`access point stored on the Scherzer server to connect an unrecognized device to
`the wireless access point”
`
`Four key arguments
`2B.1) “…transmission and use of Scherzer’s access credentials by a secondary
`device ignores the account acceptability requirement and associated tracking
`in Scherzer.”
`
`POR at 32
`
`2B.2) “Scherzer and Subramaniam, as a whole, discourages unfettered
`dissemination of access credentials to unrecognized devices.”
`
`2B.3) “…characterizes Subramaniam as describing configuration techniques
`applied to ‘in-home wireless networks.’”
`
`2B.4) “…simpler approach to network connectivity already exists and therefore
`the Scherzer-Subramaniam combination is unnecessary.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 6 (citing POR at 32-43)
`
`26
`
`
`
`2. Scherzer does not teach away
`
`2B.1) “ignores the account acceptability requirement and associated tracking”
`
`POPR
`“…the Scherzer-Subramaniam
`combination…would circumvent
`Scherzer’s user contribution
`account tracking by sharing a third
`party’s access credentials with the
`unregistered tablet.”
`
`POPR at 34
`
`POR
`“…the transmission and use of
`Scherzer’s access credentials by an
`unrecognized device ignores the
`account acceptability requirement
`and associated tracking in
`Scherzer,…”
`
`Institution Decision
`“The current record does not suggest
`that combining a Scherzer-like provider
`application client and server with the
`electronic device configuration technique
`of Subramaniam necessarily would
`involve the tracking and control
`provisions that Patent Owner refers to
`in its arguments”
`
`Institution Decision at 34
`
`Reply
`“Scherzer also makes clear—on several
`occasions—that teachings relating to
`‘account acceptability requirement and
`associated tracking’ are limited to
`specific embodiments and not
`applicable to the disclosure as a whole.”
`Reply at 7-8; APPLE-1004, [0015], [0016]
`
`POR at 25
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`2. Scherzer does not teach away
`
`2B.1) “ignores the account acceptability requirement and associated tracking”
`
`Institution Decision
`“Scherzer is directed to a
`collaborative arrangement
`providing wireless network access
`for a number of users to a number
`of separate wireless access
`points.”
`
`Institution Decision at 27 (citing APPLE-1004, ¶14)
`
`Petition
`“Scherzer describes systems in
`which a community of registered
`users can share, through a server,
`credentials used to access each
`other’s access points.”
`Petition at 17; see APPLE-1003, ¶28
`
`Reply
`“The broadest conception of
`[Scherzer’s] disclosed invention is to
`facilitate different users to quickly
`download access credentials onto their
`device so that they can access the
`Internet via wireless access points
`located in different locations.”
`Reply at 3-4; see APPLE-1003, ¶20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`
`
`2. Scherzer does not teach away
`
`2B.1) “ignores the account acceptability requirement and associated tracking”
`
`POR
`“Petitioner’s obviousness grounds,
`however, ignore important teachings in
`the references...”
`“Utilizing Scherzer’s access
`credentials by an unregistered device
`is technically precluded by
`Scherzer’s system given Scherzer’s
`account acceptability requirement…”
`POR at 9-10
`
`Institution Decision
`“The test for obviousness is not
`whether the features of a
`secondary reference may be
`bodily incorporated into the
`structure of the primary reference.”
`“‘Combining the teachings of
`references does not involve an
`ability to combine their specific
`structures.’”
`
`Institution Decision at 33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`2. Scherzer does not teach away
`
`2B.2) “unfettered dissemination”
`POPR
`“…freely disseminating third-party access
`information…would lead to widespread and
`unauthorized use of the third party’s wireless
`network…”
`
`POPR at 33
`
`POR
`“…a POSITA would be discouraged from
`allowing the unfettered dissemination of
`access credentials to unrecognized
`devices.”
`
`POR at 28
`
`Sur-Reply
`“Without tracking and reasonable limits,
`Scherzer’s access credentials would be
`freely and widely disseminated and used
`by unrecognized devices.”
`
`Sur-Reply at 16
`
`Institution Decision
`“…concerns about the fact that
`credentials are provided to [a
`secondary] device prior to registration
`are not persuasive..”
`
`Institution Decision at 34
`
`Reply
`“…in each example discussed in
`the Petition (and in the proposed
`combination as a whole), the
`secondary device that is provided with
`access credentials is specifically
`associated with a registered
`user…This type of credential sharing
`is not ‘widespread and unfettered.’”
`Reply at 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`
`
`2. Scherzer does not teach away
`
`2B.3) Subramaniam’s “in-home wireless networks”
`POR
`Subramaniam’s configuration technique is
`“for a home user configuring home-based
`devices having limited user interfaces
`(e.g., a digital media player) on a wireless
`home network.
`
`Reply
`“In deposition, Mr. McAlexander stated
`that electronic devices contemplated in
`Subramaniam are ‘very typical of Internet
`of Thing-type [(IoT)] electronics’ and that IoT
`is not only embodied in the home.
`
`POR at 41
`
`“He also confirmed that neither the Abstract
`nor the Title of Subramaniam is limited to
`“at-home networks.”
`Reply at 12 (citing APPLE-1029 at 248:13-22)
`
`Sur-Reply
`“…Subramaniam’s teachings could be
`applied beyond at-home networks,
`Subramaniam’s focus on at-home networks
`implicates ‘different security’ and tracking
`considerations than Scherzer’s ‘exchange’
`of access credentials between registered
`users’ at different locations.”
`Sur-Reply at 16 (citing APPLE-1005, [0024])
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“a POSITA reviewing this disclosure would
`understand that teachings related to a home
`network would have been useful to public
`networks, because both network[s] rely
`upon the same standards and are often
`set up in very similar ways.”
`APPLE-1028 at ¶38; Reply at 12
`
`31
`
`
`
`2. Scherzer does not teach away
`
`2B.4) “simpler approach to improving network connectivity”
`Institution Decision
`POPR
`“…there is no need for [the tablet
`“Patent Owner’s assertion that this final
`registration step is superfluous is not
`downloading Scherzer software client and
`supported — that final step would have
`registering with Scherzer’s service] in the
`been motivated in accord with the
`Second Example’s roundabout process…”
`registration and tracking goals of Scherzer.”
`POPR at 35
`Institution Decision at 34
`
`Sur-Reply
`“Scherzer explicitly provides that its access
`credentials can be ‘requested before
`arriving at a given location—preloading
`access information for a given location.’”
`Sur-Reply at 19 (citing APPLE-1004, [0024])
`
`Petition
`“The tablet…does not have any access information
`necessary to connect to the Internet, and is
`therefore unable to obtain the Scherzer software
`client required for registering with Scherzer’s
`service”
`
`Petition at 28-29 (citing APPLE-1003, 50)
`Reply
`“The Scherzer-Subramaniam combination is
`advantageous in [the second] example because the
`disclosures of either reference alone would not
`provide a better solution.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply 14
`
`32
`
`
`
`Three discussion topics
`
`1. The proposed combination is predictable
`
`2. Scherzer does not teach away
`
`3. Objective indicia of non-obviousness: no nexus
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`3. Objective indicia of non-obviousness: no nexus
`
`“…the proponent of the secondary
`considerations evidence bears the
`initial burden of establishing nexus…”
`Reply at 21
`(citing Brown, 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000))
`
`3.1 Legal framework
`
`“A ‘nexus’ between secondary
`considerations evidence and a claimed
`invention is required for the evidence to
`be given substantial weight in the
`obviousness analysis.”
`
`Reply at 21
`(citing Demaco, 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988))
`
`Commercial success evidence “is
`relevant in the obviousness context only
`if there is proof that the sales were a
`direct result of the unique
`characteristics of the claimed
`invention…” In re Huang, 100 F. 3d 135,
`140 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`Reply at 25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`3. Objective indicia of non-obviousness: no nexus
`
`3.2 Secondary considerations evidence
`POR
`“The HomePods feature ‘easy’ setup,
`such that a user needs only ‘hold an
`iPhone next to HomePod and it’s ready
`to start playing music in seconds.’”
`POR at 56 (citing KOSS-2022 at 3)
`
`POR
`“the HomePods…can receive wirelessly
`via a Bluetooth connection…between
`the HomePods…and an iPhone…,
`credential data for a WiFi network…,
`where the credential data are stored by
`the iCloud Keychain servers…”
`POR at 56 (citing APPLE-1016, 488-523)
`
`KOSS-2022
`
`APPLE-1016
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`
`
`3. Objective indicia of non-obviousness: no nexus
`
`3.2 Secondary considerations evidence
`Reply
`“For example, a third-party product review discussed how tweeters
`in the HomePod (discussed above) enable ‘beamforming,’ which
`allowed the device to ‘sound[] noticeably richer and fuller than
`almost every other speaker we’ve tested.’”
`Reply at 24-25 (citing APPLE-1031 at 7-8)
`
`APPLE-1031
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`3. Objective indicia of non-obviousness: no nexus
`
`3.3 Nexus between Challenged Claims and Apple HomePods
`POR
`“‘When the thing that is commercially
`successful is not coextensive with the
`patented invention … the patentee must
`show prima facie a legally sufficient
`relationship between that which is
`patented and that which is sold.”
`
`POR
`“‘If a product both embodies the claimed
`features and is coextensive with the
`claims at issue,’ a nexus between the
`evidence of commercial success and the
`claimed invention is presumed.”
`POR at 60 (citing SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307,
`1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d
`1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019))
`
`POR
`“The nexus is even more coextensive
`for certain dependent Challenged
`Claims.”
`
`POR at 61
`
`POR at 60
`(citing Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d at 1392)
`
`Sur-Reply
`“[Apple’s] attack ignored Koss’s
`arguments that a patentee can prove
`nexus—even when the product and
`claims are not coextensive—by showing
`that the secondary considerations are
`the “‘direct result of the unique
`characteristics of the claimed invention.’”
`Sur-Reply at 26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`
`
`3. Objective indicia of non-obviousness: no nexus
`
`3.3 Nexus between Challenged Claims and Apple HomePods
`
`“Koss does not prove that
`HomePods are coextensive
`with claim 1, and therefore
`holds the burden to prove
`nexus since it is not entitled
`to any presumption of nexus”
`
`Reply at 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`
`
`3. Objective indicia of non-obviousness: no nexus
`
`3.3 Nexus between Challenged Claims and Apple HomePods
`
`Reply
`“Koss’s entire analysis on nexus is
`limited to a few paragraphs, none of
`which include evidence sufficient to
`establish a prima facie legally sufficient
`relationship between the Challenged
`Claims and the HomePods.”
`
`Reply at 21
`
`POR
`“The HomePods are essentially the
`‘electronic device’ of claims 1 and 18
`and, together with the iPhone and
`iCloud Keychain server (and a wireless
`access point in the case of claim 1), the
`HomePods are used in a system that
`possesses all the elements of
`independent claims 1 and 18 of the ’451
`Patent…
`
`POR at 59
`
`“Although sales of the HomePods
`themselves do not include an iPhone,
`the iCloud Keychain servers or a
`wireless access point, the HomePods
`are specifically designed and marketed
`to be used with such components.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR at 60
`
`39
`
`
`
`3. Objective indicia of non-obviousness: no nexus
`
`3.4 Nexus between Challenged Claims and Apple HomePods
`
`Sur-Reply
`“…the ‘unique characteristics’ of the
`Challenged Claims enable a user to
`configure the HomePods with an
`infrastructure wireless network ‘out
`of the box’ so that the HomePods can
`access ‘the entire Apple Music catalog
`and latest Siri intelligence’ as a smart
`wireless speaker.”
`
`Sur-Reply at 26-27
`
`POR
`“...the HomePods…can receive
`wirelessly via a Bluetooth
`connection…between the
`HomePods…and an iPhone…,
`credential data for a WiFi network…,
`where the credential data are stored by
`the iCloud Keychain servers…”
`
`POR at 59
`“…sales of the HomePods themselves
`do not include an iPhone, the iCloud
`Keychain servers or a wireless access
`point…”
`
`POR at 60
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`
`
`3. Objective indicia of non-obviousness: no nexus
`
`3.4 Unclaimed features in Apple HomePods
`
`Reply
`
`Four examples:
`“(a) an ‘upward-facing woofer’ that ‘enables base
`management through real-time software modeling,”
`
`“(b) an ‘array of seven beamforming tweeters’ that
`‘provides a well-balanced smooth timbre as well as
`precise directional control of a multitude of beam shapes
`and sizes,’”
`
`“(c) ‘room-sensing technology’ to ‘learn its position in a
`room’ and ‘deliver an immersive
`music listening experience wherever it is placed,’”
`
`“(d) ‘six-microphone array’ to ‘understand people whether
`they are near the device or standing across the room.’”
`Reply at 23-24 (citing KOSS-2016, 3-4)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`3. Objective indicia of non-obviousness: no nexus
`
`3.4 Unclaimed features in Apple HomePods
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`“…unclaimed features in the HomePod
`Products are also critical as they
`materially impact the product’s
`functionality as smart wireless
`speakers.”
`
`Reply at 24
`
`“…a third-party product review
`discussed how tweeters in the
`HomePod…enable ‘beamforming,’
`which allowed the device to ‘sound[]
`noticeably richer and uller than
`almost every other speaker we’ve
`tested.’”
`
`Reply at 24-25 (citing APPLE-1031 at 7)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`
`
`Other reference slides
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`43
`
`
`
`Other reference testimony
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“By not disclosing any security
`mechanism for protecting the downloaded
`credential information, Scherzer does
`not appear concerned about a user
`that receives the credential information
`subsequently accessing and providing
`the downloaded credential information
`to other devices or users.”
`APPLE-1028, 24 (cited in Reply at 4-5)
`
`“However, Scherzer does not disclose any
`protection mechanisms that prevent
`dissemination of the access credentials
`once the registered user has obtained
`them. Scherzer does not disclose that
`the access credentials are encrypted
`or that the registered user is restricted
`in some fashion as to how he/she uses
`the obtained access credentials.
`APPLE-1028, 22 (cited in Reply at 4)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`McAlexander Testimony
`“A POSITA implementing Scherzer’s
`system would utilize security features to
`prevent registered users from copying
`and disseminating access credentials. For
`example, the Scherzer software client
`installed on a registered user’s device
`could use access credentials from
`Scherzer’s server without revealing the
`access credentials to the registered user.
`The Scherzer software client could
`also safeguard the access credentials,
`which are generally considered private
`information, and preclude the transfer of
`access credentials to other devices.”
`KOSS-2026, ¶64 (cited in Sur-Reply at 3)
`
`44
`
`
`
`Other reference testimony
`
`Cooperstock Testimony
`“…Scherzer does not describe any type of
`MAC address filtering.”
`APPLE-1028, ¶32 (cited in Reply at 8-9)
`
`“The sections of Mr. McAlexander’s declaration
`that focus on MAC address tracking (through
`use of white MAC address lists for registered
`users) do not cite to Scherzer or to any other
`reference demonstrating how a POSITA would
`have implemented these features into the
`Scherzer system.”
`
`APPLE-1028, ¶33 (cited in Reply at 9)
`
`McAlexander Testimony
`“…MAC filtering based on a list of
`MAC addresses that were allowed access (e.g.,
`a white list) or that were prohibited
`access (e.g., a black list) were techniques
`known to a POSITA to permit access by
`registered users to a network or prohibit/prevent
`access by other users, as the case may be. In a
`white list scenario like Scherzer’s, where only
`registered users are permitted access, a
`POSITA would understand that the access point
`could store the list of MAC addresses of the
`registered users locally or query a remote server
`(e.g., Scherzer’s server) for the list…”
`KOSS-2026, ¶61 (cited in Sur-Reply, 3-4)
`Q: Scherzer does not discuss MAC filtering
`anywhere, correct?
`A: Does not discuss MAC filtering?
`Q: Correct.
`A: Not that