`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