`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`BOSE CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent No. 10,206,025
`_____________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM 1 IS UNPATENTABLE .................................................................... 2
` GROUND 1A: REZVANI-REZVANI-SKULLEY .............................. 2
`1.
`Rezvani-875 Does Not “Teach Away” ....................................... 2
`2.
`Rezvani-875 Figure 2 Discloses Headset Components .............. 4
`GROUND 2A: SCHRAGER-GOLDSTEIN......................................... 8
`Koss’s Commercial Success Argument Lacks Nexus ........................ 10
`1.
`No Presumptive Nexus Because Koss Failed to Show
`that AirPods Are “Coextensive” with Claim 1 ......................... 10
`Any Conceivable Nexus Has Been Rebutted ........................... 15
`Dr. Williams Had No Obligation to Address Commercial
`Success Before Koss Raised It .................................................. 15
`THE DEPENDENT CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................. 16
`The Signal-Strength Claims (Grounds 1B, 1E, 1G, 2B, 2D, 2F) ........ 16
`
`1.
`Koss’s Argument that Harada Fails to Disclose the
`Signal-Strength Limitation Ignores Harada’s Key
`Disclosures ................................................................................ 16
`Koss Fails to Rebut the Reasons for the Harada-Based
`Combinations ............................................................................ 20
`The “True Wireless” Claims (40-51) Are Unpatentable ..................... 21
`1.
`Grounds 1F-1H ......................................................................... 21
`2.
`Grounds 2A-2C ......................................................................... 27
`The “Hanger-Bar” Claims (29-37, 53) Are Unpatentable .................. 30
`The Firmware Claims (10, 38, 51) Are Unpatentable ......................... 32
`1.
`Hind (Grounds 1C, 1H) Discloses Firmware Upgrades ........... 32
`2.
`Schrager-Goldstein (Ground 2A) Obtains Firmware
`Updates from Goldstein’s Server .............................................. 33
`No Commercial Success for Dependent Claims ................................. 36
`
`III. Koss’s Criticism of Dr. Williams Is Meritless .............................................. 37
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 38
`
`2.
`3.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– i –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Apple v. AliveCore,
`IPR2021-00970, Paper 10(Dec. 8, 2021) ............................................................. 37
`BMW v. Carrum,
`IPR2019-00903, Paper 24 (Oct. 9, 2020) ............................................................. 35
`Bradium v. Iancu,
`923 F.3d 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 35
`Demaco v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing,
`851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ..................................................................... 11, 15
`Eli Lilly v. Teva Pharms.,
`IPR2018-01423, Paper 77 (Feb. 18, 2020)
`aff’d, 8 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................... 11
`EWP v. Reliance,
`755 F.2d 898 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 19
`Fleming v. Cirrus Design,
`2022 WL 710549 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2022) ........................................................ 36
`Fox Factory v. SRAM,
`944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................... 1, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
`In re Epstein,
`32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 20
`In re Fulton,
`391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................... 20, 26
`In re Keller,
`642 F.2d 413 (Fed. Cir. 1981) .............................................................................. 30
`KSR Int’l v. Teleflex,
`500 U.S. 398 (2007). ............................................................................................ 20
`
`– ii –
`
`

`

`
`
`Lectrosonics v. Zaxcom,
`IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 (Jan. 24, 2020) .................................................... 10, 14
`Microsoft v. Synkloud,
`IPR2020-00316, Paper 43 (Jun. 14, 2021) ........................................................... 12
`Ormco v. Align,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 15
`RULES
`37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(4) ................................................................................................ 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– iii –
`
`

`

`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,206,025
`
`1002
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,206,025
`
`1003 Declaration of Tim A. Williams (“Williams”)
`
`1004 Curriculum Vitae of Tim A. Williams
`
`1005 Declaration of John G. Casali
`
`1006 Curriculum Vitae of John G. Casali
`
`1007
`
`PCT/US2009/039754
`
`1008 RESERVED
`
`1009 RESERVED
`
`1010 RESERVED
`
`1011 RESERVED
`
`1012 RESERVED
`
`1013
`
`PCT Publication No. WO2009/126614A1
`
`1014 RESERVED
`
`1015 RESERVED
`
`1016 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0165875 (“Rezvani-875”)
`
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 6,856,690 (“Skulley”)
`
`1018 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0142693
`
`1019 U.S. Patent No. 7,069,452 (“Hind”)
`
`– iv –
`
`

`

`
`
`1020 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0076489
`
`1021 U.S. Patent No. 7,457,649
`
`1022 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0223604
`
`1023 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0253579
`
`1024 U.S. Patent No. 7,627,289
`
`1025 U.S. Patent No. 5,889,870
`
`1026 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0031475 (“Goldstein”)
`
`1027
`
`IEEE Std. 315, Graphic Symbols for Electrical and Electronic Diagrams
`(1975) (Reaffirmed 1993)
`
`1028 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0141950
`
`1029 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0083331
`
`1030 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0206776
`
`1031 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0286466
`
`1032 RESERVED
`
`1033 U.S. Patent No. 5,761,298 (“Davis”)
`
`1034 U.S. Patent No. 5,960,094
`
`1035 U.S. Patent No. 6,295,366
`
`1036 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0110017
`
`1037 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0068653
`
`1038 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0113689
`
`1039 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0037818
`
`1040 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0210752
`
`– v –
`
`

`

`
`
`1041 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0149261
`
`1042 U.S. Patent No. 8,180,078
`
`1043 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0058313
`
`1044 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0147629
`
`1045 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0078812
`
`1046 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0166005
`
`1047 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0065805
`
`1048
`
`Internet Archive of
`http://www.bose.com/controller?event=VIEW_PRODUCT_PAGE_EV
`ENT&product=headphones_audio_subcategory (Nov. 1, 2007)
`
`1049 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0092098
`
`1050 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0226094
`
`1051 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0018810
`
`1052 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0258613
`
`1053 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0046869
`
`1054 RESERVED
`
`1055 Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 6:20-cv-00661-ADA (D.I. 1) (Complaint &
`Exs. A-G) (W.D. Tex. July 22, 2020)
`
`1056 RESERVED
`
`1057 Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances
`Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia) (Mar. 13, 2020)
`
`1058
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia) (Apr.
`15, 2020)
`
`– vi –
`
`

`

`
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia) (May
`8, 2020)
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia) (June
`18, 2020)
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia) (July
`2, 2020)
`
`Seventh Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Aug. 6, 2020)
`
`Eighth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Sept. 21, 2020)
`
`1064 Ninth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Oct. 14, 2020)
`
`1065
`
`Tenth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Nov. 18, 2020)
`
`1066 RESERVED
`
`1067 RESERVED
`
`1068 RESERVED
`
`1069 Open Patent Matters Before J. Albright (W.D. Tex.) Not on Appeal, Lex
`Machina, https://law.lexmachina.com (last checked March 3, 2021)
`
`1070 Open Patent Matters Before J. Albright (W.D. Tex.) Not on Appeal
`Filed Before July 22, 2020, Lex Machina, https://law.lexmachina.com
`(last checked March 3, 2021)
`
`– vii –
`
`

`

`
`
`1071
`
`Scott McKeown, District Court Trial Dates Tend to Slip After PTAB
`Discretionary Denials, https://www.patentspostgrant.com/district-court-
`trial-dates-tend-to-slip-after-ptab-discretionary-denials/ (July 24, 2020)
`(last checked Dec. 1, 2020)
`
`1072 Civil Docket, Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 6:20-cv-00661-ADA (W.D.
`Tex.) (as of March 3, 2021)
`
`1073 Civil Docket, Koss Corp. v. PEAG LLC d/b/a JLab Audio, 6:20-cv-
`00662-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (as of March 3, 2021)
`
`1074 Civil Docket, Koss Corp. v. Plantronics, Inc., 6:20-cv-00663-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.) (as of March 3, 2021)
`
`1075 Civil Docket, Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy, Inc., 6:20-cv-00664-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.) (as of March 3, 2021)
`
`1076
`
`Skrainer, S. F., Royster, L.H., Berger, E.H., & Pearson, R. G. “Do
`Personal Radio Headsets Provide Hearing Protection,” Sound and
`Vibration, 19(5) (1985), 16-19
`
`1077 Casali, J. G. & Park, M. Y., “Attenuation performance of four hearing
`protectors under dynamic movement and different user fitting
`conditions,” Human Factors (1990)
`
`1078 U.S. Patent No. 7,564,989
`
`1079 RESERVED
`
`1080 Civil Docket, MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc., 6:18-cv-00308-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.) (as of Dec. 1, 2020)
`
`1081 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0123171
`
`1082 Agreed Scheduling Order, Koss Corp. v. Plantronics et al., 6:20-cv-
`00663, -00664, -00665 (D.I. 28) (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2020)
`
`1083 U.S. Patent No. 8,571,544
`
`1084
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,571,544
`
`– viii –
`
`

`

`
`
`1085 U.S. Patent No. 9,049,502
`
`1086
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,049,502
`
`1087 U.S. Patent No. 9,438,987
`
`1088
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,438,987
`
`1089 U.S. Patent No. 9,497,535
`
`1090
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,497,535
`
`1091 U.S. Patent No. 9,729,959
`
`1092
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,729,959
`
`1093 U.S. Patent No. 9,986,325
`
`1094
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,986,325
`
`1095 U.S. Patent No. 10,469,934
`
`1096
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,469,934
`
`1097 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0136446 (“Rezvani-446”)
`
`1098 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0229014 (“Harada”)
`
`1099
`
`PCT/KR2006/000922 (PCT Publication No. WO 2006/098584A1)
`(“Oh”)
`
`1100 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0165720
`
`1101 U.S. Patent No. 7,072,686 (“Schrager”)
`
`1102 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0160820
`
`1103 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0197956
`
`1104 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0133734
`
`1105 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0204168
`
`– ix –
`
`

`

`
`
`1106 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0073522
`
`1107 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0052144
`
`1108 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0163358
`
`1109 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0217827
`
`1110 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0016205
`
`1111 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0133551
`
`1112 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0298613
`
`1113 U.S. Patent No. 4,456,795
`
`1114 U.S. Patent No. 5,998,275
`
`1115 U.S. Patent No. 6,499,129
`
`1116 U.S. Patent No. 7,039,944
`
`1117 U.S. Patent No. 7,289,775
`
`1118
`
`1119
`
`Twelfth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Jan. 7, 2021)
`
`Thirteenth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Feb. 2, 2021)
`
`1120
`
`Proposed Scheduling Order, Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 6:20-cv-00661, -
`00662 (D.I. 24) (W.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2021)
`1121 Civil Docket, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., 6:20-cv-00665-ADA (W.D.
`Tex.) (as of March 1, 2021)
`1122 Civil Docket, Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., 4-20-cv-05504-JST (N.D. Cal.)
`(as of March 1, 2021)
`1123 Civil Docket, Bose Corp. v. Koss Corp., 1-20-cv-12193-RGS (D. Mass.)
`(as of March 1, 2021)
`
`– x –
`
`

`

`
`
`1125
`
`1124 Civil Docket, VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., 1:19-cv-00977-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.) (as of March 1, 2021)
`Plaintiff Koss Corporation’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions,
`Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 6:20-cv-00661 (W.D. Tex.)
`1126 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0098878
`1127 U.S. Patent No. 6,097,809
`1128 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0167187
`1129 Complaint, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., 6-20-cv-00665 (W.D. Tex.)
`(filed July 23, 2020)
`1130 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0068610
`1131 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0201585
`1132 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0073460
`1133 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0100274
`1134 U.S. Patent No. 7,065,342
`1135 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0041697
`1136 Declaration of Nathan R. Speed in Support of Motion for Admission Pro
`Hac Vice
`1137 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 6-20-cv-
`00661 (D.I. 55) (W.D. Tex. June 22, 2021)
`1138 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy, Inc., 6-20-
`cv-00664 (D.I. 38) (W.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2021)
`1139 Order Granting Motion to Transfer, Koss Corp. v. Plantronics, Inc., 6-
`20-cv-00663 (D.I. 45) (W.D. Tex. May 20, 2021)
`1140 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Koss Corp. v. PEAG LLC d/b/a JLab
`Audi, 6-20-cv-00662 (D.I. 45) (W.D. Tex. June 22, 2021)
`1141 Deposition Transcript of Joseph C. McAlexander III (Mar. 1, 2022)
`(“McAlexander-Depo.”)
`1142 Deposition Transcript of Nicholas S. Blair (Feb. 28, 2022)
`(“Blair-Depo.”)
`1143 U.S. Patent No. 6,516,346
`1144 U.S. Patent No. 4,494,189
`
`– xi –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1145 Apple’s Second Amended Answer, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No.
`6:20-cv-00665-ADA (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2021)
`1146 Koss’s Patent Owner Response in IPR2021-00297 (Paper 22) (Aug. 27,
`2021)
`1147 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0134696
`1148 Order Denying Motion to Compel (ECF 123), Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`6:20-cv-00665-ADA (W.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2022)
`1149 Koss Corp. Form 10-K (Fiscal Year 2013)
`1150 Koss’s Patent Owner Response in IPR2021-00680 (Paper 21) (Jan. 05,
`2022)
`1151 Koss’s Sur-Reply in IPR2021-00381 (Paper 34) (Feb. 8, 2022)
`1152 Reply Declaration of Tim A. Williams, Ph.D. (Mar. 25, 2022)
`(“Williams-Reply”)
`
`
`
`
`
`– xii –
`
`

`

`
`
`The Board should maintain its preliminary determination that the Petition’s
`
`Rezvani-Rezvani grounds (1A-1H) and Schrager-Goldstein grounds (2A-2F) render
`
`claims 1-56 unpatentable. Paper 15 (“ID”), 28-53.
`
`Koss’s Response (“POR”) presents frivolous counterarguments. For instance,
`
`Koss argues that Rezvani-875 fails to disclose claim elements like a “processor”
`
`because Rezvani-875’s Figure 2—which shows baseband processor 225 and
`
`microprocessor 235—purportedly is not part of the headset. POR, 16.
`
`Yet Rezvani-875’s Figure 2 unquestionably is part of the headset, as Koss
`
`itself told this Board in IPR2021-00297:
`
`Rezvani’s headset includes an “output 229” (BOSE-1016,1 Fig. 2)…
`Rezvani’s headset also includes a baseband processor 225 and a
`microprocessor 235 (BOSE-1016, Fig. 2)…
`
`Ex. 1146, 10. Infra § I.A.2.
`
`Koss also relies on commercial success of Apple’s AirPods, but wrongly
`
`seeks a “presumption” of nexus (1) based on claim charts improperly incorporated
`
`by reference; (2) without identifying a claimed “server,” let alone explaining how
`
`limitations [1D] and [1F] are met; and (3) without any showing that AirPods are
`
`“coextensive” with any challenged claim as required under Fox Factory v. SRAM,
`
`944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Infra § I.C.
`
`
`1 Ex. 1016 in IPR2021-00297 is Rezvani-875.
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM 1 IS UNPATENTABLE
`
` GROUND 1A: REZVANI-REZVANI-SKULLEY
`1.
`
`Rezvani-875 Does Not “Teach Away”
`
`Ground 1A’s straightforward combination uses Rezvani-875’s headset
`
`(implemented with two earphones per Skulley)2 in Rezvani-466’s media server
`
`system. As Bose explained, Rezvani-875 discloses that its headset can have a
`
`“wireless connection” to a “music server” ([0033])—and thus Rezvani-875
`
`explicitly suggested using its headset in a system like Rezvani-446’s, which includes
`
`a music server. Petition, 13. Further, using Rezvani-875’s headset in Rezvani-446’s
`
`system was a predictable application of known technology for its intended use.
`
`Petition, 13-14.
`
`Koss argues that POSAs would have been discouraged from the combination
`
`to avoid “tax[ing] Rezvani-875’s headset” with simultaneous wireless connections
`
`to both a music server and a handset, which would “drain the headset’s battery
`
`faster.” POR, 13-15.
`
`
`2 Koss does not contest the obviousness of implementing Rezvani-875’s headset
`
`with two earphones.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`In fact, the challenged claims nowhere require that the headphone’s wireless
`
`connections to a handset and a server be simultaneous—but in any event, Koss’s
`
`argument ignores Rezvani-875’s repeated explanation that its headset “supports
`
`simultaneous operation” over multiple wireless interfaces. Rezvani-875, [0040],
`
`[0049], Fig. 8, claims 1-7 & 28-35. Koss likewise ignores Rezvani-875’s
`
`explanation that one such connection is to a “music server.” Id., [0033]. The Petition
`
`cited this disclosure when explaining that Rezvani-875’s headset already
`
`communicates with a music server, like Rezvani-446’s WPM server, such that using
`
`Rezvani-875’s headset in Rezvani-446’s system would have been its intended use.
`
`Petition, 11-14. Far from being a “tax” on Rezvani-875’s headset, simultaneous
`
`wireless connections, including to a music server, are its raison d’être.
`
`Koss also implies that Rezvani-875’s headset does not need a music server
`
`because it can get music from the handset. POR, 13. This ignores Rezvani-875’s
`
`express disclosure of the headset getting music from both sources ([0033]) and
`
`Dr. Williams’ unrebutted testimony that (a) music servers had greater storage, and
`
`(b) users desired music-source flexibility. Williams ¶¶42, 115-116; see also
`
`McAlexander-Depo., 76-79.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Finally, Koss argues that an optional “low power mode” described in
`
`Rezvani-875 [0039] “teach[es] away.” POR, 14-15. But neither that paragraph, nor
`
`anything else in Rezvani-875, suggests that this “mode” nullifies the headset’s
`
`support for multiple wireless connections. Indeed, Rezvani-875’s claims explicitly
`
`recite a headset with “power management means for ultra low power operation”
`
`(claim 28; see also claim 50) and also supports multiple simultaneous wireless
`
`connections (claims 32-35).
`
`2.
`
`Rezvani-875 Figure 2 Discloses Headset Components
`
`The Petition
`
`identified certain headset-related claim elements (e.g.,
`
`“processor,” “microphone”) in Rezvani-875’s Figure 2. Petition, 18-25. Koss
`
`argues that Figure 2 does not depict headset components (POR, 16).
`
`Koss’s argument is frivolous. As noted earlier, Koss already told this Board
`
`that Figure 2 depicts components of Rezvani-875’s headset. Figure 2, below, shows
`
`“baseband processor 225” and “microprocessor 235,” and Koss—citing Figure 2—
`
`argued that “Rezvani’s headset includes” both. Ex. 1146, 10.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Koss was correct. Indeed, Rezvani-875’s [0038] and [0047] state,
`
`respectively, “As shown in FIG. 2, the headset may have an optional power
`
`management algorithm” and “As shown in FIG. 2, the headset has a power
`
`management algorithm.”3 Figure 2 is clearly in the headset. Williams-Reply ¶¶4-6.
`
`
`3 Koss mischaracterizes [0038], suggesting it conveys only that the headset can have
`
`power management “like” in Figure 2. POR, 19. It does not say that. Williams-
`
`Reply ¶¶6-7. Koss ignores [0047].
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Further, Rezvani-875’s Figure 1 is a “block diagram showing the features of
`
`the headset” ([0005]):
`
`
`Figure 2 “illustrates the subsystems that support the various functionalities,”
`
`i.e., those Figure 1 depicts. Rezvani-875, [0006], [0019]-[0020]. Thus, Figure 2
`
`plainly depicts subsystem hardware components in the headset. Williams ¶¶86-93;
`
`Williams-Reply ¶¶8-10.
`
`That all of Rezvani-875’s “embodiments” and claims are directed to a headset
`
`reinforces this conclusion. Rezvani-875, Title, [0002], [0015]-[0016], claims 1-54;
`
`Williams-Reply ¶11. So too do other disclosures explicitly connecting Figure 1’s
`
`functionalities to Figure 2’s hardware components, and tying both to a headset.
`
`Williams-Reply ¶¶12-14.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Koss offers three baseless reasons for reversing itself on Figure 2.
`
`First, Koss argues “Rezvani-875 never states that Figure 2 shows a headset.”
`
`POR, 16. To the contrary, [0038] and [0047] expressly state that headset
`
`components are “shown” in Figure 2.
`
`Second, Koss argues that Figures 1 and 2 depict different devices because they
`
`use different reference numerals (100 and 200). POR, 17-18. But, consistent with
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(4), Figures 1 and 2 plainly depict different “parts” of the
`
`headphone: a functional “part” (Figure 1) and a hardware “part” (Figure 2).
`
`Rezvani-875, [0005]-[0006], [0019]-[0021].
`
`Third, Koss argues that Figure 2’s components are consistent with a
`
`cellphone. POR, 18. But Rezvani-875’s novelty was a headset with functionality
`
`conventionally associated with cellphones. Figure 2 includes a SIM card because
`
`Rezvani-875’s headset supports “cellular phone standards,” a USB interface
`
`because music “may be loaded into the headset memory…via a USB high-speed
`
`data port,” solar cells because the headset uses “solar power,” and DC input to
`
`“charge the battery.” Rezvani-875, [0019], [0021], [0033], [0039]. Williams-Reply
`
`¶¶15-17. In reversing what it previously told the Board, Koss ignores all these
`
`disclosures.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
` GROUND 2A: SCHRAGER-GOLDSTEIN
`
`The Board agreed POSAs had reasons to add Goldstein’s PAA-functionality
`
`to Schrager’s headset and base unit so they communicated with Goldstein’s “Server”
`
`to (1) purchase/download/stream music, and (2) obtain firmware updates. ID, 48-51;
`
`Petition, 60-64.
`
`Challenged claim 1’s “digital audio player” (“DAP”) has two wireless
`
`connections: with the headphone and the server. POR, 20. In Schrager-Goldstein,
`
`Schrager’s base unit (orange) is a DAP. Petition, 64-66. That base unit has both
`
`claimed connections (red)—one with Schrager’s “headset unit 105” (blue) and
`
`another with Goldstein’s Server (green):
`
`Petition, 63.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Citing Goldstein [0076], Koss argues that Goldstein’s PAA software allows
`
`only one connection—“to the Server or…other Personal Audio Assistants”—such
`
`that “Schrager’s base unit…when equipped with Goldstein’s PAA software, could
`
`not connect simultaneously to both the server and to…Schrager’s headset as required
`
`by claim 1.” POR, 21-23 (Koss’s emphasis). This argument both misapprehends
`
`the Schrager-Goldstein combination and misreads Goldstein.
`
`As Bose explained, in Schrager-Goldstein, the DAP (Schrager’s base unit
`
`110) connects to the combination’s headphone (Schrager’s headset unit 105) using
`
`Schrager’s pre-existing “wireless communication link 115,” and to Goldstein’s
`
`Server using Goldstein’s PAA software. Petition, 62-63, 68-73. Thus, even if
`
`Goldstein [0076] limited PAA software to one connection (it does not, see below),
`
`this would not impact Schrager-Goldstein’s base unit, which uses PAA software
`
`only to connect to Goldstein’s Server. Williams-Reply ¶¶18-19.
`
`Further, POSAs plainly would not read the “or” in Goldstein [0076] to mean
`
`“only one connection at a time.” Goldstein repeatedly explains that its PAA software
`
`permits multiple connections. Goldstein, [0078] (PAA enables “communication
`
`with the Server system, peer devices, and other capable devices”), [0087] (“two or
`
`more Personal Audio Assistants” can be paired), [0088] (PAA-enabled devices can
`
`“relay” audio to other devices). Williams-Reply ¶¶20-23.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Finally, Goldstein’s repeated disclosure of simultaneous connections between
`
`multiple PAA-enabled devices is consistent with POSAs’ background knowledge,
`
`given the various wireless protocols incorporated in Goldstein’s devices. Goldstein,
`
`[0076]. POSAs knew these protocols enabled multiple simultaneous connections
`
`using different protocols (e.g., WiFi and cellular) or one protocol (e.g., multiple
`
`Bluetooth connections). Williams-Reply ¶¶24-28.
`
` Koss’s Commercial Success Argument Lacks Nexus
`1.
`
`No Presumptive Nexus Because Koss Failed to
`Show that AirPods Are “Coextensive” with Claim 1
`
`Koss admits that commercial success requires a nexus between the successful
`
`product and the challenged claims. POR, 26. Koss relies exclusively on
`
`“presumptive nexus” between the claims and Apple’s AirPods (POR, 28), which
`
`requires that the product “embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with
`
`them.” Lectrosonics v. Zaxcom, IPR2018-01129, Paper 33, 32-33 (Jan. 24, 2020)
`
`(precedential).4
`
`
`4 Koss does not try to prove nexus by showing that AirPods’ success is driven by the
`
`claimed invention. Fox Factory, 994 F.3d at 1373-74.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Koss bears the burden of proving nexus, including that AirPods are
`
`“coextensive” with the claims. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373 (“presuming nexus is
`
`appropriate when the patentee shows that…[the successful] product embodies the
`
`claimed features and is coextensive with them”); Demaco v. F. Von Langsdorff
`
`Licensing, 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Coextensiveness requires not only that a claim covers the product, but also
`
`that “the product is essentially the claimed invention.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at
`
`1374. Fox Factory found that nexus “may not be presumed” where unclaimed
`
`features “materially impact[ed] the functionality” of the product. Id. at 1376.
`
`a. Koss Failed to Establish that Claim 1 Covers AirPods
`
`In arguing that claim 1 covers AirPods, Koss cites (1) barebones preliminary
`
`infringement contentions (Ex. 2037) and (2) cursory testimony citing the contentions
`
`with no independent analysis (Ex. 2024, ¶¶80-84). POR, 27-29.
`
`The Board should reject Koss’s secondary considerations argument because,
`
`contrary to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3), the POR incorporates by reference Koss’s
`
`contentions and lacks independent analysis of AirPods. Eli Lilly v. Teva Pharms.,
`
`IPR2018-01423, Paper 77, 104 (Feb. 18, 2020) (no nexus where claim chart
`
`incorporated by reference: “we consider this argument waived”), aff’d, 8 F.4th 1349
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Further, Koss’s contentions—which Apple denies (Ex. 1145, 9-11)—are mere
`
`attorney argument, not evidence. Microsoft v. Synkloud, IPR2020-00316, Paper 43,
`
`40-41 (Jun. 14, 2021) (patent owner failed to prove nexus; claim charts are “attorney
`
`argument”).
`
`Further still, the contentions’ claim chart provides no explanation how
`
`limitations [1D] and [1F] are satisfied. [1D] requires a “remote server” in wireless
`
`communication with the DAP. Koss’s chart simply repeats [1D] without identifying
`
`any server. Ex. 2037, 16, 76. [1F] requires the headphone’s processor to “initiat[e]
`
`transmission of a request to the remote, network-connected server,” i.e., the
`
`headphone communicates directly with the same server as the DAP. ID, 34-35. The
`
`chart provides zero evidence that AirPods do this. Ex. 2037, 18, 78. While the POR
`
`mentions “Siri,” it likewise identifies no server5—let alone one communicating with
`
`both AirPods and a DAP, as [1D] and [1F] collectively require. Microsoft, 41
`
`(no nexus where “nothing in the [claim chart’s] screenshot shows” limitation is
`
`satisfied). Williams-Reply ¶¶31-42.
`
`There can be no presumption of nexus because Koss failed to establish the
`
`prerequisite that claim 1 covers AirPods.
`
`
`5 It hypothesizes “an Apple server that provides voice assistant (e.g., Siri) services,”
`
`without identifying it and cites only the deficient claim chart. POR, 25.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`b. Koss Failed to Address
`AirPods’ Unclaimed Features
`
`Koss made no effort to meet its burden to show that AirPods lack unclaimed
`
`features responsible for their success. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1376 (rejecting
`
`argument “that the coextensiveness requirement is met so long as the patent claim
`
`broadly covers the product that is the subject of the secondary considerations
`
`evidence”). Koss’s own exhibits describe numerous unclaimed features, and Koss
`
`failed to address any of them:
`
` “ultra-low power Apple W1 chip”;
` “high-quality audio”;
` “industry-leading battery life”;
` “one-tap setup”;
` “flexible ear tips”;
` “vent system to equalize pressure”;
` “sweat- and water-resistan[ce]”;
` “high dynamic range amplifier”
` “force sensor”;
` “[a]udio [s]haring”;
` “[a]nnounce [m]essages”; and
` integration with Apple’s ecosystem.
`
`Ex. 2027, 2-3; Ex. 2029, 1-8; Williams-Reply ¶44.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Koss’s own employee Mr. Blair admitted that headphones’ commercial
`
`success is affected by cost, weight, comfort, durability, ease of use, battery life,
`
`sound quality, moisture tolerance, and brand name—none of which are in the claims.
`
`Blair-Depo, 15-20. Indeed, he admitted that the Apple brand—obviously
`
`unclaimed—drives Apple sales. Id., 20. See also Williams-Reply ¶¶45-46.
`
`The irrelevance of the claims to commercial success is confirmed by the
`
`failure of Koss’s own Striva earbuds—which Koss argues practiced the ’025
`
`patent. (Ex. 1148, 1). Blair-Depo, 22-30; Ex. 1149, 6.
`
`Finally, Koss’s contention that AirPods have a nexus to claims in two other
`
`patents dooms its secondary considerations argument. In IPR2021-00680, Koss said
`
`AirPods are co-extensive with a claim requiring the headphone to receive firmware
`
`updates from the same server to which it sends requests—a feature purportedly
`
`critical to AirPods’ reliability. Ex. 1150, 52-60. In IPR2021-00381, Koss said
`
`AirPods are co-extensive with a claim reciting two physically-separate earbuds with
`
`elongated portions “extending downward” (like AirPods)—purportedly
`
`the
`
`invention’s “heart.” Ex. 1151, 24. Because these features are not in claim 1 of the
`
`’025 patent, Koss cannot enjoy a presumption of nexus for that claim. Fox Factory,
`
`944 F.3d at 1374 (no nexus where products “embody the independent claim of a
`
`different patent”); Lectrosonics, 32.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`Any Conceivable Nexus Has Been Rebutted
`
`A nexus is rebuttable with evidence that “the commercial success was due
`
`to…factors other than the patented invention,” Demaco, 851 F. 2d at 1393, including
`
`features “known in the prior art,” Ormco v. Align, 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006).
`
`By defining the market in which AirPods succeeded as the “true-wireless”
`
`market (POR, 27), Koss implicitly recognizes that AirPods’ true-wireless design is
`
`important to their success. Yet Koss concedes that Oh (Ex. 1099) is prior art and
`
`discloses true-wireless earphones. POR, 8; Williams-Reply ¶¶47-50. Koss cannot
`
`take credit for success of tech