Petitioner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
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
