Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`Entered: July 12, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`BOSE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 15, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, DAVID C. McKONE, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`Entered: July 12, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`BOSE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 15, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, DAVID C. McKONE, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`MICHAEL N. RADER, ESQ.
`NATHAN R. SPEED, ESQ.
`Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`605 Third Avenue
`25th Floor
`New York, New York 10158
`(212) 336-3850
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MARK G. KNEDEISEN, ESQ.
`K&L Gates LLP
`210 Sixth Avenue
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
`(412) 355-6500
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, June
`
`15, 2022, commencing at 12:59 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE SCANLON: Okay. Good afternoon. Welcome
`to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. We're here today
`for the hearing in IPR2021-00612, between Petitioner,
`Bose Corporation, and Patent Owner, Koss Corporation.
`The challenged patent is Patent number 10,206,025.
` I'm Judge Scanlon, and joining me today are
`Judge McKone and Judge Beamer.
` Let's start with appearances. Who's here for
`Petitioner, please?
` MR. RADER: Thank you, Your Honor. My name is
`Michael Rader, lead counsel for Petitioner, from Wolf
`Greenfield. And also with me to argue part of the
`hearing is my colleague, Nathan Speed, from Wolf
`Greenfield.
` JUDGE SCANLON: Okay. Thank you.
` And for Patent Owner, please.
` MR. KNEDEISEN: For Patent Owner, this is Mark
`Knedeisen from K&L Gates.
` JUDGE SCANLON: Okay. All right. Very good.
`Thank you.
` Because we're conducting this hearing by video,
`please make every effort to speak clearly and to avoid
`speaking over others. That will assist our court
`reporter in making a clear record. Also, please try to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`mute your line when you're not speaking, and try to
`identify yourself when you do speak.
` When referring to materials in your
`demonstratives, it's helpful for you to provide us with
`the page number for the slide that you're referring to.
`That improves the clarity of the record. Or if you're
`citing to other exhibits or papers in the record, you
`know, please also provide the page number or page and
`line number. We have all your slides and documents in
`front of us, so feel free to refer to whatever you'd
`like.
` I believe there is a public line today. I just
`wanted to make everyone aware that others may be
`listening.
` As set forth in the hearing order, each party
`will have 60 minutes to present their arguments.
`Because it bears the burden of persuasion, Petitioner
`will go first, and may reserve no more than half of its
`time for rebuttal. Patent Owner will then have an
`opportunity to respond, and may also reserve time for
`sur-rebuttal. We will keep the time here to the best of
`our ability, and I'll try to provide updates about
`remaining time as the hearing progresses.
` And with that, we'll start with Petitioner.
`And please let us know how much time, if any, you would
`like to reserve for rebuttal.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
` MR. RADER: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor, this
`is Mike Rader, and we would like to reserve ten minutes
`for rebuttal.
` JUDGE SCANLON: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. RADER: And with the Panel's permission,
`we'd like to divide things up. I'm going to address the
`issues that relate to the independent claim, Claim 1,
`and Mr. Speed will address issue related to the
`dependent claims.
` JUDGE SCANLON: Very good.
` MR. RADER: If I could start Your Honors on
`slide 6, please. I'm going to talk briefly about the
`Rezvani-Rezvani-Skulley combination for Claim 1 and
`Ground 1.
` It's a very simple combination. Rezvani-446,
`which includes this Fig. 7, describes a system, or an
`ecosystem, including this WPM Server, which stands for
`Wireless Portable Media, including music, and then, it
`also includes various devices that connect to it
`wirelessly including a headset and a handset. It does
`not get into detail about the guts of the headset, but
`Rezvani-875, which was filed on the same day by the same
`inventors, plainly for use in the system because it
`describes connecting to a music server. It discloses
`the guts of the headset. It's all about the headset.
`So it's got the antennae, the circuit, the processor,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`and the battery, et cetera.
` And it also has both of the claimed
`connections. So we've provided some excerpts here on
`the slide. For example, the headset in Rezvani-875 in
`paragraph 4, it explains that well, of course, you use
`your headset to connect to your handset or mobile phone,
`in the language of the claim, your mobile digital audio
`player. If for no other reason, then you want to take
`phone calls. Paragraph 33 of Rezvani-875 also describes
`that the headset would connect to a music server. And
`those are the two connections that the headset needs for
`Claim 1.
` The only other piece of Claim 1 is the first --
` JUDGE SCANLON: Excuse me, Mr. Rader, sorry to
`interrupt you. This is Judge Scanlon.
` I did, though, want to ask you on slide 6, the
`annotated Fig. 7, so you're showing dotted line
`connection between the headset and the handset in green.
`So I'm taking that as Rezvani-875 is disclosing that
`wireless connection. Can you elaborate, though, where
`Rezvani-875 explicitly discloses a connection between a
`handset and a headset.
` MR. RADER: Sure. That is right underneath on
`the slide in paragraph 4. It's describing wireless
`headsets which are common devices used for hand-free
`operation. And it says, For example, cell phone
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`headsets use wireless technology to communicate with the
`cell phone handset. That's one place.
` And even in paragraph 33, which is the next one
`as well, it describes that the headset has a wire or
`wireless connection to another device which would
`include the handset.
` JUDGE SCANLON: Okay.
` MR. RADER: Okay.
` JUDGE SCANLON: And that's -- all right. Thank
`you.
` MR. RADER: And so that question really leads
`to exactly where -- where I wanted to go, Your Honor,
`which is when you take the headset of Rezvani-875, and
`use it in the system of Rezvani-446, you have both of
`those connections. And that gets you all of the claim
`limitations except for those first and second earphones
`which are obvious in view of Skulley, and Koss does not
`dispute that. There is no dispute in the case that
`using two earphones instead of one was an obvious thing
`to do.
` So you know, skipping over the arguments that
`Koss has already dropped, you know, the question is
`well, what are they arguing? So it's really a
`rhetorical question that they've posed, and goes to
`really what you're asking about, Judge Scanlon, well why
`when you use the Rezvani-875 headset in the 446 system,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`why would you maintain the connection to the handset,
`why not drop that? Okay.
` If you turn to slide 9, that's actually an
`argument that came up for the first time in their
`sur-reply. It's not a question they pose in the Patent
`Owner Response. The Patent Owner Response posed two
`other arguments, both of which were dropped in the
`sur-reply any way. I believe it's a battery drain and an
`optional power conserving mode in Rezvani-875.
` But this highlight in yellow, this rhetorical
`question, is really what we're focused on. Well, why
`would you maintain that connection? Even though this
`question was first posed in Koss' sur-reply, it actually
`was answered in Dr. Williams' opening declaration the
`day we filed the petition.
` In paragraphs 115 and 116, he explained
`flexibility. Right. If you are not in -- if you don't
`have an Internet connection and you want to listen to
`music, you would connect to your phone, your mobile
`digital audio player in a local fashion with Bluetooth,
`for example, so you can listen to music.
` If you are connected to the Internet and you
`want to listen to a song that's not on your phone, well,
`then, of course, you want to connect to the music -- the
`remote music server. Couldn't be simpler.
` On top of that, Rezvani-875 itself in paragraph
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`4 explains that, Well, there's another totally
`independent reason you always want to maintain your
`connection between your handset and your headset, which
`is you take phone calls on it. You're not going to be
`able to take phone calls on it if you, like, get rid of
`that connection, the Rezvani-875.
` So really, it couldn't be simpler. And there
`was --
` JUDGE McKONE: And that -- and the evidence you
`point to in paragraphs 115 and 116, does that -- is that
`based on any other evidence other than the
`expert's opinion here, because we're trying to avoid
`hindsight in a combination like this?
` MR. RADER: Well, if you look, for example, at
`paragraph 115, Dr. Williams cites for corroboration
`Exhibit 1109 for this. And if you look at page --
`paragraph 116, he also cites Rezvani-446 itself,
`paragraph 73. And of course, Rezvani-875, the prior art
`that we're applying here, itself describes the fact
`that, of course, one of the reasons you have the headset
`is so you could take phone calls, so you want to be
`connected to your handset.
` JUDGE McKONE: And what is Exhibit 1109?
` MR. RADER: I believe 1109 is another prior art
`patent, Your Honor. That's simply cited as
`corroboration for Dr. Williams' analysis.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
` JUDGE McKONE: Okay. But that's not part of
`the combination, so we would have to try to
`figure out why that 1109 would actually be relevant here
`since it's not part of the combination that you're
`asserting?
` MR. RADER: Right, it's just -- it's just
`corroboration for Dr. Williams' explanation of reasons
`why a POSA -- so we're not adding anything to the
`combination. I mean, let's just be clear. Rezvani-875
`has both of the connections. Rezvani-875 very clearly
`says you have a headset that connects both to a music
`server. It says that in paragraph 33. And to a
`handset. It says that in paragraph 33, and it also says
`that is in paragraph 4 at the very beginning of the
`reference.
` All we're saying is when you incorporate that
`headset into the system of Rezvani-446, there is no
`reason why you would discontinue that advantageous
`connection. So we're not citing prior art here to try
`to convince Your Honors to add something to a
`combination that's not supported in the references. We
`are just responding here.
` And I guess he maybe had some foresight because
`this argument hadn't even been made. To the suggestion
`that you would somehow drop this advantageous connection
`that the prior art were applying already says it's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`advantageous, and you know, an understatement to say
`it's logical. Of course, you're not going to get rid of
`the connection that allows you to use your headphone to
`make cellular phone calls as described in paragraph
`four. There's no reason why you would do that. It's
`really the reverse of their rhetorical question when
`they say, well, why -- why would you make this
`connection. The real question is why would you get rid
`of it? It's already there.
` And what's really telling, Your Honor, is that
`Koss' expert, Mr. McAlexander, does not even address
`this issue. In his declaration, he has four or five
`paragraphs about Rez -- about the Rezvani combination.
`Paragraph 37 to 41 address whether Fig. 2 of Rezvani-875
`shows a headset. I'm going to get to that in a second.
`Not -- not relevant to this one.
` And then, paragraph 42 relates to an argument
`they've dropped where he's said, well, having multiple
`connections will drain your battery faster. They have
`dropped that because, obviously, Rezvani-875 already
`counts that it has multiple connections. In fact,
`that's the raison d'etre for Rezvani-875.
` And paragraph 43 related to another argument
`that they've already dropped. That's the sum total of
`their expert's testimony. He offers no testimony on
`this rhetorical question they posed. The record is the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`reference itself which describes it, and Dr. Williams
`who supports it, you know, with his own logic as well as
`these corroborating references.
` Unless Your Honors have any other questions
`about that one, I'll move on to the only other argument
`they make about the Rezvani-Rezvani combination, which
`is Fig. 2. And that's slide 10. And let me just
`advance one.
` So Koss makes the argument that we failed to
`prove that Rezvani Fig. 2, which we relied on for
`several of the components because it shows the
`processor, it shows the antenna, et cetera, that we
`failed to show that Fig. 2 of Rezvani-875, in fact,
`depicts headset components. This one was, I'll say,
`head-scratcher, because Rezvani-875 says, not once but
`twice, as shown in Fig. 2, the headset may have --
`and then, and that those particular paragraphs refers to
`tower management, which is shown in shaded in blue.
`Couldn't be clearer.
` And actually, in a prior IPR at 2021-00612, in
`which the Board found all challenged claims
`unpatentable, Koss itself asserted to the Board that
`Rezvani-875 Fig. 2 shows that. So they obviously agreed
`with that.
` If you'll just turn to slide 11 for a moment.
`This is the last one on this. Just to kind ever of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`bow, you know. Koss tries to bolster its argument in
`Fig. 2 by saying, Well, there are various components
`shown on Fig. 2 that we don't think it makes a lot of
`sense to include them in a headset, like solar cells,
`why would you need those in a headset?
` Well, the answer is Rezvani-875 was all about
`this new headset which had a lot of additional
`functionality. Paragraph 47 -- sorry, paragraph 48 of
`Rezvani-875 says, the headset as those, shows that.
`They said, well, why would you need a USB interface in a
`headset? That doesn't make sense. Well, Rezvani-875
`paragraph 33 says, the headset has the USB interface.
`You know, they said, well, why would you need DC input,
`direct current input? Well, Rezvani-875 paragraph 48
`talks about how you recharge it.
` And then, they also talk about the SIM card.
`Why would you need a SIM card in a headphone? Well,
`Rezvani-875 paragraph 19 explicitly says, hey, this is a
`new and improved headset that supports cellular phone
`standards. That's why.
` So we don't think there's any real dispute that
`Fig. 2 shows components of the headset.
` Your Honor, that's it for
`Rezvani-Rezvani-Skulley. Unless you have questions,
`I'll talk very briefly about the Schrager-Goldstein
`ground. I'm mindful of my time as well.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
` If you could turn for a second to slide 16 that
`we have. It's another straightforward combination where
`Schrager describes a classic headset-based unit
`architecture there in blue. It discloses everything in
`the claim except for the server, and the connection to
`the server. Well, Goldstein talked about something
`called PAA, Personal Audio Assistance functionality or
`software in a headphone for communicating with a server,
`like a music server. So the combinations just says,
`hey, take the Schrager system and add this one
`additional connection to the server from Goldstein.
`That's it. That's the only thing that comes to
`Goldstein. And the connection, for example, between the
`headset unit and the base unit of Schrager is provided
`in Schrager itself. It's that connection 115 that we're
`showing in blue.
` So what's Koss arguing here? Well, they're
`arguing that they say that Petition was based on using
`Goldstein's PAA software rather than Schrager's existing
`connection 115 for the connection between the headset
`unit and the base unit.
` Now, why would that matter? I'll get to that
`in a second because it's a two-part argument that
`requires them to prevail on both things. But before I
`get to why it matters, let me just explain why their
`argument is completely contradicted by the Petition.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
` If you look at the claim on the left-hand side
`of slide 16, the second limitation has a headphone
`assembly separate from and in wireless communication
`with the mobile digital audio player. So that -- that
`is the first place where the claim talks about the
`wireless connection between the headphone and the base
`unit or the -- or the cell phone.
` So that limitation is addressed on page 67 of
`the Petition. Page 67 of the Petition cites Schrager,
`not Goldstein, column 2, lines 26 through 48. Now, I
`forgot to put this one on the slide. I'll just read it
`to you. Schrager says, notably, the base unit can
`include a second short range wireless transceiver for
`communicating with the short-range wireless transceiver
`on the headset unit.
` So our Petition, when establishing what makes
`the connection between the headphone and the wireless
`digital audio player, points to that portion of
`Schrager.
` Later, there's another related limitation, the
`first wherein clause that also talks about the
`communication between that digital audio player and that
`phone assembly. And that one is addressed on page 74 of
`the Petition. And I do have a slide on that. It's
`slide 18. Upper left-hand corner shows you in the
`Petition. What did we cite? We cited Schrager. Slide
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`7, lines 5 through 11 explains that the base unit sends
`data to the headset unit via the wireless communication
`link, 115. That's the combination. Not PAA.
` Now, the Petition never says to use Goldstein's
`PAA for communication between the headset and the base
`unit. Where did they get that from? They appear to
`have gotten confused. They cite pages 62 and 63 of the
`Petition. But there, we were talking about the fact
`that a headset could use the PAA functionality to
`communicate with other headsets. So an additional
`connection beyond just communicating with the base unit.
`There's nothing there that's using PAA to connect the
`headphone to the base unit. The disclosures we relied
`on were solely within Schrager.
` So now, we get to why would any of this matter
`anyway. And in fact, if you could turn to slide 20. So
`basically, what they say is they cite paragraphs 76 of
`Goldstein in the upper right-hand corner, which uses the
`word “or.” And they say, Paragraph 76 of Goldstein talks
`about the PAA can connect to a server, or, right, to
`other PAAs. And they say, Ah-ha. That means PAA
`software only allows one connection.
` So if they were right that the Petition was
`based on using PAA software to the headphone to
`communicate with the base unit, then -- and if they're
`right about this or, then it would mean we have a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`problem because our headset wouldn't be able to
`communicate with both the server and the base unit as
`the claim requires.
` But not only are they wrong about what the
`Petition said, totally wrong, they're also totally wrong
`about Goldstein. I mean, look at paragraph 78 of
`Goldstein. We reproduced it here. In at least one
`exemplar environment, a personal audio assistance system
`includes as part of a headset system, okay, it has a
`communications port enabling communication with the
`server system, peer devices, and other capable devices.
` It's an and; not an or.
` And Dr. Williams explained, in his reply
`declaration responding to this argument, it's clearly an
`and. He further explained that the protocols that
`Goldstein talks about all permit multiple connections.
`And they have no response to it.
` But anyway, as I mentioned earlier, this is
`part is really academic, Your Honors, because the
`Petition never relies on the PAA from Goldstein for the
`connection between the headphone and the base unit.
`That's all Schrager.
` Okay. I'd like to talk -- unless there are
`questions about Schrager-Goldstein, I'd like to talk
`very briefly --
` JUDGE SCANLON: Oh, excuse me, I did have one
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`question on that combination. Is Petitioner's position
`that the Schrager -- Schrager's base unit 110
`corresponds to the digital audio player or the MP3
`player that could be part of the base unit?
` MR. RADER: That's a good question, Your Honor.
`I would like to see how we phrased it on your Petition.
`I think either one would work. I think we are looking
`at the base unit 110, which includes that functionality
`as being the mobile digital audio --
` JUDGE SCANLON: I guess my follow-up question,
`then, is: is the base unit 110, would that be portable or
`mobile?
` MR. RADER: Oh, yes, that's -- I think that's
`-- that's clear. Yes, it's a portable and mobile. It's
`the server that's farther away and it's kind of a -- of
`a different ilk.
` JUDGE SCANLON: Does Schrager describe the base
`unit as being mobile, or specify that? I'm not sure
`that it does.
` MR. RADER: Your Honor, if I could -- if I
`could take that offline and respond in my rebuttal time,
`I would appreciate it. I want to just make sure that I
`get --
` JUDGE SCANLON: Right.
` MR. RADER: -- you the right answer.
` JUDGE SCANLON: No, that would be fine, thank
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`you.
` MR. RADER: Okay. All right. So bracketing
`that issue just for the moment. I'd like to talk for
`just a moment about what sort of became the lead
`argument in the sur-reply for cause. It was -- it was
`actually the last argument in the Patent Owner Response
`became the lead argument in their sur-reply. And that's
`the definition of the person of ordinary skill in the
`art, and Dr. Williams' testimony about it.
` So what Dr. Williams said in paragraph 34 of
`his declaration, his opening declaration, was the core
`of the functionality here, the core of the technology is
`the wireless functionality. So electrical engineering,
`wireless communication. And therefore, the person of
`ordinary skill in the art would need to have that --
`that background.
` In paragraph 35, he noted as well that there
`are some other issues at play. Headphone design issues,
`what we call form factor issues. So for example, using
`two earphones rather than one earphone, you know, was it
`known to connect the two earphones with a headband, and
`things like that. So he said, in the real world, you
`know, these two people would talk to each other and work
`together. And so that's what I'm going to do in my
`analysis. In paragraph 36 of his declaration, he
`explained that, and what he did is wherever there is a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`headphone design issue, he reviewed and cited and relied
`on Dr. Casali's declaration. For example, like I've
`said before, is it obvious to use two earphones rather
`than one? He relied on Dr. Casali for that. And he
`cited that in his -- in his analysis.
` The Institution Decision approved this
`approach, found it reasonable, and said it's consistent
`with the record.
` And Koss doesn't really disagree either. They
`say their proposal there was only quote, slightly
`different, unquote.
` The parties took the same approach to the
`proceeding. They both hired an electrical engineering
`expert as their primary expert, and both submitted a
`declaration from a headphone person. Theirs was from a
`Mr. Blair, who's an employee. Ours was from Dr. Casali.
` So there are two very similar and really
`functionally equivalent ways you could set this up. You
`could say you could define the person of ordinary skill
`in the art as the two people, electrical engineer and
`headphone person, together collectively being the person
`of ordinary skill in the art talking to each other.
` And there's nothing wrong with that, by the
`way. Koss made a mistake in its Patent Owner Response
`in suggesting that there is. As we explained on page 37
`of our reply, the courts and this -- and the PTAB have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`frequently confirmed that that's a perfectly appropriate
`thing to do.
` But the other alternative is to define the
`person of ordinary skill in the art as the one who has
`this sort of core confidence, and here, that would be in
`the wireless communication, and then, put them on a team
`communicating with the headphone person.
` They're functionally identical ways of doing it
`in the sense that no matter which way you do it, you
`still have the same two people having the same
`conversation. Is there any possible change to the
`outcome? No.
` Claim 1 is a good example, right. Claim 1, as
`I said, it requires two earphones, Rezvani and Rezvani
`don't disclose that, Skulley does. And there is no
`dispute. Koss admits that it's obvious to use the two
`earphones in that combination.
` So in their Patent Owner Response, after seeing
`Dr. Williams defining the person of skill in the art as
`the electrical engineer, they admitted, you know, using
`the two earphones rather than one is obvious. And in
`their sur-reply, after they accused him of changing his
`approach, which he didn't, I'll talk about that in a
`second, they still admit that it's obvious to do that.
`So there is no -- there's no difference to that or any
`other aspect of the analysis in the Petition.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
` But more importantly, Koss' papers totally
`misrepresent Dr. Williams' deposition testimony. Their
`argument is based on the idea that on pages 29 and 30 of
`his deposition, Dr. Williams quote, repudiated the POSA
`analysis he provided in his opening declaration. They
`totally ignore page 35 of his deposition where he
`clarified and said, no, no, no, no, that's right, my
`analysis was based on defining the team as the
`electrical engineer talking to the headphone person
`rather than saying the team is both of them.
` So after they raised this issue in their Patent
`Owner Response, in our reply, we pointed out -- in their
`Patent Owner Response, they ignored paragraph 35, didn't
`cite it, didn't discuss it -- sorry, page 35 of his
`deposition. Didn't cite it, didn't discuss it, didn't
`acknowledge it. We pointed it out in the reply, in the
`sur-reply, they still didn't touch it. They ignored it
`again. They don't touch page 35 of the deposition. And
`then, I got their slides, I figured, oh, I assume
`they'll deal with it. The slides don't mention it
`either.
` So the bottom line is you know, they say that
`the deposition testimony they're pointing to goes to the
`weight of Dr. Williams' opinion. And we agree with
`that. We're very confident that when you consider Dr.
`Williams' deposition testimony in its entirety,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`including page 35, it will have zero impact on the
`weight that you assign to Dr. Williams' very detailed
`and very careful analysis in the proceeding.
` I'm going to stop there because I want to leave
`Mr. Speed enough time for the dependent claims, and I'll
`reserve whatever part of the ten minutes I can if needed
`later.
` JUDGE McKONE: So just one clarification. So
`you're -- the portions of the deposition transcript that
`Patent Owner points to, you're saying that he -- the
`expert has made a mistake, he got confused, made a
`mistake, and tried to correct it later. Is that your
`explanation?
` MR. RADER: That's right. On pages 29 and 30,
`as I said, those two options are so close to each other
`and functionally equivalent that he knew there was
`something about a team, so on page 29, they pointed him
`to paragraph 34. And in responding about paragraph 34,
`which talked about electrical engineer being a POSA, he
`said, you know, I know there's a team aspect to this
`because I know I reviewed Dr. Casali's work, and there
`are some issues here that relate to headphone design.
` But he got a little bit confused about the
`nature of the team aspect, and when he got to page 35,
`he corrected himself and he said, yeah, no, I -- the
`analysis I applied was the EE was the POSA, and that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`Patent 10,206,025 B2
`
`person is in conversation with a headphone person.
` JUDGE McKONE: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. RADER: So thank you.
` MR. SPEED: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`Nathan Speed on behalf of Bose.
` I'm going to address the dependent claims.
`There's a series of different grounds here, so I'm happy
`to jump to any one in particular. My plan is to start
`with the signal strength claims, if that works with
`everyone.
` Hearing no objection, then, I'll start with
`slide 34. This shows the six grounds in which the
`signal strength limitation is implicated. We basically
`have two sets. We have three grounds that build up off
`the Rezvani core combination, and three that build off
`of the Schrager-Goldstein combination.
` If we turn to slide 35, we'll see the example
`of the signal strength limitation. There's a dependent
`claim that introduces to the system of Claim 1 a second
`digital audio player. So we now have two audio players
`that you're communicating with from your with headset.
`And the signal strength limitation provide that the
`headset transitions from -- to plain
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
