`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BOSE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________
`
`CASE: IPR2021-00680
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,469,934 B2
`_____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`505404399.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2
`A.
`SUMMARY OF ’934 PATENT .......................................................... 2
`B. HEADPHONE FORM FACTORS ...................................................... 4
`C.
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................... 7
`D.
`PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE .............................................................. 8
`1.
`REFERENCES ........................................................................... 8
`2.
`TESTIMONY ........................................................................... 11
`III. PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THAT CLAIM 1 WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS ......................................................................................... 14
`A.
`PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THAT CLAIM 1 WOULD
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS UNDER GROUND 1A ............................ 15
`PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THAT CLAIM 1 WOULD
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS UNDER GROUND 2A ............................ 21
`1.
`PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW FIRMWARE UPGRADES
`FOR WIRELESS EARPHONES ............................................. 21
`REZVANI-875 DOES NOT DEPICT A HEADSET .............. 23
`2.
`IV. PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE “SIGNAL STRENGTH”
`CLAIMS WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS ............................................. 26
`A. HARADA DOES NOT TEACH OR SUGGEST THE
`“TRANSITIONING” OF THE SIGNAL STRENGTH CLAIMS .... 29
`B. A POSA WOULD NOT USE HARADA’S DATABASE IN
`WIRELESS EARPHONES ................................................................ 34
`PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THAT CLAIMS 34-41 WOULD
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS ............................................................................. 37
`A.
`PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THAT CLAIMS 34-41 WOULD
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS UNDER GROUNDS 1A AND 1C .......... 39
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`B.
`
`PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THAT CLAIMS 34-41 WOULD
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS UNDER GROUNDS 2C AND 2D .......... 40
`VI. PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THAT DEPENDENT CLAIMS 56-57
`WOULD BE OBVIOUS .............................................................................. 43
`A. GROUND 1A ..................................................................................... 44
`B. GROUND 2C ..................................................................................... 48
`C.
`CLAIM 56 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS ...................... 50
`VII. COMMERCIAL SUCCESS OF AIRPODS PRODUCTS SUPPORTS
`NONOBVIOUSNESS OF OTHER CHALLENGED DEPENDENT
`CLAIMS ....................................................................................................... 52
`1.
`BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 52
`2.
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ............................................................. 53
`3.
`THE AIRPODS PRODUCTS ARE A COMMERCIAL
`SUCCESS ................................................................................ 55
`NEXUS BETWEEN THE AIRPODS PRODUCTS AND THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ....................................................... 56
`PETITIONER’S EXPERT DELIBERATELY IGNORED THE
`COMMERCIAL SUCCESS EVIDENCE ............................... 61
`VIII. WILLIAMS’S DIRECT TESTIMONY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO
`LITTLE IF ANY WEIGHT .......................................................................... 62
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 65
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp.,
`IPR2021-00546, Paper 10 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2021) ............................................... 21
`In re Applied Materials, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 56
`Baran v. Med. Device Techs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................ 42
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 37
`BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Stragent, LLC,
`IPR2017-00676, Paper 33 (PTAB June 14, 2018) ............................................. 64
`Bose Corp. v. Koss Corp.,
`IPR2021-00680, Paper 15 (Oct. 13, 2021) ..................................................passim
`Commvault Sys., Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
`IPR2017-02006, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 19, 2018) ............................................. 22
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,
`851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................. 55, 57, 59
`Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. Cal. Edison Co.,
`227 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 54
`Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co.,
`96 F.3d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 38
`Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co.,
`713 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 64
`Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2017-01003, Paper 14 (PTAB Sep. 1, 2017) ................................................ 65
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`In re Fine,
`837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 14
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,
`994 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 55
`Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.,
`737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 34
`Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co.,
`321 U.S. 275 (1944) .................................................................................. 1, 54, 60
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 54
`In re Huang,
`100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 54
`SK hynix Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00561, Paper 36 (PTAB Jul. 5, 2018) ................................................. 63
`Indivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs, SA,
`930 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 64
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 54, 60
`Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC,
`IPR2020-00648, Paper 28 (PTAB Sep. 27, 2021) .............................................. 22
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 54
`Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp.,
`776 F.2d 309 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 54
`PPV Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 42
`SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 55
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.,
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 64
`W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 33
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) ........................................................................ 40, 44
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 14, 64
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(4) .............................................................................................. 24
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`EXHIBIT LISTING
`
`DESCRIPTION
`EXHIBIT
`KOSS-2001 Docket Report, Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-
`00661-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (as of July 15, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2002 Docket Report, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-
`00665-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (as of July 14, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2003 Order Granting Bose Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss for
`Improper Venue, Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-
`00661-ADA, Dkt. 55 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 22, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2004 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Transfer (Redacted/Public
`version), Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case 6:20-cv-00665-ADA,
`Dkt. 76 (W.D. Tex. April 22, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2005 Order Granting Motion to Transfer, Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp.,
`Case No. 20-cv-05504-JST, Dkt. 72 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2006
`
`Joint Motion to Consolidate Cases, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case
`No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 84 (W.D. Tex. June 8, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2007 U.S. Patent 8,190,203
`
`KOSS-2008 U.S. Patent 8,571,544
`
`KOSS-2009 U.S. Patent 9,049,502
`
`KOSS-2010 U.S. Patent 9,438,987
`
`KOSS-2011 U.S. Patent 9,497,535
`
`KOSS-2012 U.S. Patent 9,729,959
`
`KOSS-2013 U.S. Patent 9,986,325
`
`KOSS-2014 U.S. Patent 10,206,025
`
`KOSS-2015 U.S. Patent 10,368,155
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DESCRIPTION
`EXHIBIT
`KOSS-2016 Agreed Scheduling Order, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No.
`6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 30 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2020)
`
`KOSS-2017
`
`Joint Motion to Amend Agreed Scheduling Order, Koss Corp. v.
`Apple Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 85 (W.D. Tex.
`June 15, 2021).
`
`KOSS-2018 Claim Construction Order, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No.
`6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 83 (W.D. Tex. June 2, 2021).
`
`KOSS-2019 R. Davis, “Albright Says He’ll Very Rarely Put Cases On Hold
`For PTAB,” Law 360, May 11, 2021
`(www.law360.com/ip/articles/1381597/albright-says-he-ll-very-
`rarely-put-cases-on-hold-for-ptab?nl_pk=c24deb67-194a-4b6c-
`918a-
`ea02a827e121&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&ut
`m_campaign=ip) (last accessed Jun. 11, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2020 Order Denying Motion to Stay, Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan
`Industrial Holdings, et al., Case 6:20-cv-00200-ADA, Dkt. 76
`(W.D. Tex. April 7, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2021 Order Governing Proceedings - Patent Case, Judge Albright,
`W.D. Tex. Waco Division, Feb. 23, 2021
`
`KOSS-2022 Exhibit C1 to Apple Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions,
`Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA, January
`15, 2021 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`KOSS-2023
`
`Joint Claim Construction Statement, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 68 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 14,
`2021)
`
`KOSS-2024 Docket Report, Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-
`00203 (D. Utah) (as of July 14, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2025
`
`Patent 8,655,420
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DESCRIPTION
`EXHIBIT
`KOSS-2026 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue Under 28
`U.S.C. § 1404(a), Koss Corp. v. Plantronics, Inc. et al., Case No.
`6:20-cv-00663, Dkt. 45 (W.D. Tex. May 20, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2027 Docket Report, Koss Corp. v. Plantronics, Inc. et al., Case No.
`4:21-cv-03854-JST (N.D. Cal.) (as of July 14, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2028 Order Granting Skullcandy, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for
`Improper Venue under Rule 12(b)(3), Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy,
`Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00664, Dkt. 38 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2029 Docket Report, Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-
`00203 (D. Utah April 1, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2030 Defendant Apple Inc.’s Invalidity Contentions, Koss Corp. v.
`Apple Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA, January 15, 2021
`(W.D. Tex.)
`
`KOSS-2031 Docket Report, Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., Case No. 4:20-cv-
`05504-JST (N.D. Cal.) (as of July 15, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2032 Letter from M. Rader to D. Ghavimi, April 6, 2021
`
`KOSS-2033 Order, In re Apple Inc., Case No. 21-147, D.I. 25 (Fed. Cir.
`August 4, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2034 C. Miller, “Apple releases updated firmware version for AirPods
`and AirPods Pro,” 9to5Mac, April 28, 2021
`(9to5mac.com/2021/04/28/apple-releases-updated-firmware-
`version-for-airpods-and-airpods-pro/) (last accessed September 8,
`2021)
`
`KOSS-2035
`
`J. Clover, “Apple Updates AirPods 2 and AirPods Pro Firmware
`to Version 3A283,” MacRumors, September 14, 2020
`(www.macrumors.com/2020/09/14/apple-updates-airpods-
`firmware-3a283/) (last accessed September 15, 2021)
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DESCRIPTION
`EXHIBIT
`KOSS-2036 M. Potuck, “AirPods dominate wireless headphone market as
`global growth hits 90% for 2020,” 9to5Mac, Jan. 27, 2021
`(https://9to5mac.com/2021/01/27/airpods-dominate-wireless-
`headphone-market/) (last accessed Sept. 15, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2037 Exhibit 1014 from IPR2021-00592 (“Plaintiff Koss Corporation’s
`Preliminary Infringement Contentions,” Koss Corp. v. Apple, Inc.,
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00665 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2020))
`
`KOSS-2038 Exhibit H to Dkt. No. 1 in Koss Corp. v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
`6:20-cv-00665 (W.D. Tex. July, 22, 2020)
`
`KOSS-2039
`
`“Connect your AirPods and AirPods Pro to your iPhone,” Apple
`Support (support.apple.com/en-us/HT207010) (last accessed Sept.
`9, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2040 U.S. Patent 7,881,745 B1 to Rao et al.
`
`KOSS-2041 Excerpts from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th
`ed., 1996
`
`KOSS-2042 Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th ed.,
`
`KOSS-2043 Techopedia Online Dictionary definition of “database”
`(www.techopedia.com/definition/1185/database-db) (accessed
`Dec. 22, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2044 U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0238163 A1 to Chen
`
`KOSS-2045 U.S. Patent No. 7,920,891 B2 to Kwak
`
`KOSS-2046 Deposition Transcript of Dr. T. Williams, Dec. 2, 2021
`
`KOSS-2047 Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander, IIII
`
`KOSS-2048 Declaration of Nicholas S. Blair
`
`KOSS-2049 Apple Inc., Form 10-K, for fiscal year ended September 26, 2020
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`EXHIBIT
`KOSS-2050
`
`KOSS-2051
`
`KOSS-2052
`
`DESCRIPTION
`“Apple AirPods are now available,” Apple Newsroom, Dec. 13,
`2016 (www.apple.com/newsroom/2016/12/apple-airpods-are-
`now-available/) (last accessed Sept. 8, 2021)
`
`“AirPods, the world’s most popular wireless headphones, are
`getting even better,” Apple Newsroom, Mar. 20, 2019
`(www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/airpods-the-worlds-most-
`popular-wireless-headphones-are-getting-even-better/) (last
`accessed Sept. 8, 2021)
`
`“Apple reveals new AirPods Pro, available October 30,” Apple
`Newsroom, Mar. 20, 2019
`(www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/10/apple-reveals-new-airpods-
`pro-available-october-30/) (last accessed Sept. 8, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2053 D. Curry, “Apple Statistics (2021),” Business of Apps, updated
`August 16, 2021 (www.businessofapps.com/data/apple-statistics/)
`(last accessed August 18, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2054
`
`KOSS-2055
`
`KOSS-2056
`
`J. Cipriani, “Your AirPods just got a quiet update,” CNET,
`February 1, 2017 (www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/how-to-update-the-
`firmware-of-apples-airpods/) (last accessed September 8, 2021)
`
`J. Clover, “Apple Releases New Firmware Update for AirPods,”
`MacRumors, May 24, 2017
`(www.macrumors.com/2017/05/24/airpods-firmware-update/)
`(last accessed September 8, 2021)
`
`J. Clover, “Apple Releases New Firmware for AirPods 2 and
`AirPods Pro,” MacRumors, December 16, 2019
`(www.macrumors.com/2019/12/16/apple-releases-new-airpods-
`firmware/) (last accessed September 8, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2057
`
`“Switch AirPods between iPhone and other devices,” iPhone User
`Guide (support.apple.com/guide/iphone/switch-airpods-between-
`devices-iph08b253c17/ios) (last accessed Dec. 30, 2021)
`
`x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`EXHIBIT
`KOSS-2058
`
`KOSS-2059
`
`DESCRIPTION
`“Switch your AirPods to another device,” Apple Support
`(support.apple.com/en-us/HT212204) (last accessed Dec. 30,
`2021)
`
`“Apple reinvents the wireless headphone with AirPods,” Press
`Release, Sep. 7, 2016 (www.apple.com/newsroom/2016/09/apple-
`reinvents-the-wireless-headphones-with-airpods/) (last accessed
`Dec. 30, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2060
`
`“AirPods Teardown,” IFIXIT, Dec. 20, 2016
`(www.ifixit.com/Teardown/AirPods+Teardown/75578) (last
`accessed Dec. 31, 2021)
`
`xi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`The Board granted institution for inter partes review of claims 1-22, 32-41,
`
`47 and 49-62 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent 10,469,934 (BOSE-1001, “the
`
`’934 Patent”). Bose Corp. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00680, Paper 15 (Oct. 13, 2021)
`
`(“Institution Decision”). Patent Owner, Koss Corporation, submits this Patent
`
`Owner Response (“POR”) under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120.
`
`Petitioner challenged the Challenged Claims solely on obviousness grounds.
`
`The Board should find that Petitioner failed to show that the Challenged Claims
`
`would have been obvious. For the independent, Petitioner failed to show the
`
`obviousness of the specific relationship of the claimed components and
`
`mischaracterized what the relied-upon references show. Additionally, many
`
`dependent Challenged Claims are nonobvious for reasons above and beyond the
`
`nonobviousness of the independent claims.
`
`To the extent that the evidence on patentability for certain Challenged Claims
`
`presents a close call, the marked commercial success of third-party products that
`
`practice those Challenged Claims “tip[s] the scales in favor of patentability” for
`
`those Challenged Claims. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co., 321 U.S.
`
`275, 279 (1944).
`
`Finally, the testimony of one of Petitioner’s experts on the obviousness of the
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims, which testimony the Board relied upon to institute the trial,
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`should be given little if any weight because, on cross-examination, that expert
`
`renounced the “person of ordinary skill in the art” skill level that he applied in his
`
`direct testimony. Because Petitioner’s other expert did not opine on the obviousness
`
`of the claims, Petitioner is left with no reliable evidence as to how a person skilled
`
`in the art would view the Challenged Claims.
`
`This POR is supported by declarations from Mr. Joseph C. McAlexander, III
`
`and Mr. Nicholas Blair. KOSS-2047; KOSS-2048. Mr. McAlexander is an expert
`
`in the field of the ‘934 Patent (KOSS-2047, ¶¶3-10) and Mr. Blair is a headphone
`
`designer (KOSS-2048, ¶¶1-5).
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A.
`Summary of ’934 Patent
`The ’934 Patent includes sixty-two (62) claims, of which claims 1 and 58 are
`
`independent. Claim 1 recites a headphone assembly that comprises first and second
`
`earphones, an antenna for receiving wireless signals from a mobile digital audio
`
`player (“DAP”) via one or more ad hoc wireless communication links, a wireless
`
`communication circuit for receiving and transmitting wireless signals to and from
`
`the headphone assembly, a processor, memory for storing firmware executed by the
`
`processor, a rechargeable battery, and a microphone. The processor is configured,
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`upon activation of a user-control of the headphone assembly, to initiate transmission
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`of a request to a remote, network-connected server that is in wireless communication
`
`with the mobile DAP. The headphone assembly is further for receiving firmware
`
`upgrades transmitted from the remote, network-connected server. BOSE-1001,
`
`18:1-32.
`
`Independent claim 58 is similar to claim 1, except that whereas claim 1 recites
`
`transmission of firmware upgrades, claim 58 recites “the headphone assembly
`
`transitions to play digital audio content received wirelessly from a second digital
`
`audio source via a second wireless communication link based on, at least, a signal
`
`strength for the second wireless communication link ….” Id., 24:61-65.
`
`Certain features of the wireless earphones are depicted in Figure 3
`
`(reproduced below) of the ‘934 Patent. The earphones can each include a transceiver
`
`circuit 100, power source 102, microphone 104, acoustic transducer 106 (e.g.,
`
`speaker), and antenna 108. BOSE-1001, 6:30-35. The transceiver circuit 100,
`
`power source 102, and acoustic transducer 106 may be housed within the body 12
`
`of the earphone 10. Id., 6:35-38. The transceiver circuit 100 may be implemented
`
`with a system-on-chip (SoC), “which is conducive to miniaturizing the components
`
`of the earphone 10, which is advantageous if the earphone 10 is to be relatively small
`
`in size, such as an in-ear earphone ….” Id., 6:43-48.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`More details about the ’934 Patent are provided in the Institution Decision
`
`(Paper 15) at pages 4-6.
`
`B. Headphone Form Factors
`The ’934 Patent discloses several different headphone form factors and
`
`several Challenged Claims related to particular form factors. For example, claims
`
`32 and 54 are directed to “true wireless” (“TWS”) earphones (explained further
`
`below); and claims 33 and 54 add an earbud. Therefore, an overview of headphone
`
`form factors may be beneficial.
`
`One form factor consideration is the connectivity of the headphones. Some
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`headphones have wired connectivity, i.e., have a wire or cable to carry the audio to
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`be played by the earphones from the audio source to the earphones. Other
`
`headphones are wireless (i.e., receive audio via radio/RF signals). KOSS-2047, ¶31;
`
`KOSS-2048, ¶7. The ’934 Patent relates to wireless earphones. BOSE-1001, 2:55-
`
`60.
`
`There are also headphones that have a “band” between the two earphones,
`
`such as a headband that goes over the top of a user’s head or a band that goes behind
`
`the user’s head. KOSS-2048, ¶32. Figure 1C of the ‘934 Patent shows headphones
`
`with a headband. Headphones with a headband could be wired (like Figs. 1A and
`
`1B of BOSE-1020) or wireless (like the headphones in Figure 1C of the ‘934 Patent).
`
`In wireless headphones with a headband, each earphone could be independently
`
`wireless or, alternatively, only one earphone could comprise the circuitry for
`
`receiving wireless signals and could then transmit signals to the other earphone via
`
`a wire in the headband. BOSE-1001, 3:57-65.
`
`Other types of headphones do not include a band. Such “band-less”
`
`headphones could be wired, with a wire/cable connected to the audio source, such
`
`as shown in Figure 3 of BOSE-1020, or wireless, such as shown in Figures 1A, 1B
`
`and 1D of the ’934 Patent. See also KOSS-2048, ¶32; BOSE-1020, Fig. 5 (depicting
`
`wireless, band-less earphones). Wireless earphones that do not have a wire/cord
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`connected to the audio source and that do not have a band or wire/cord connected
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`between the earphones are sometimes called “True Wireless” or “TWS” earphones.
`
`KOSS-2047, ¶32; KOSS-2048, ¶9; BOSE-1005, ¶77. TWS earphones are often
`
`implemented as earbuds (e.g., TWS earbuds). KOSS-2047, ¶32; KOSS-2048, ¶11;
`
`BOSE-1005, ¶77.
`
`Another form factor consideration is how the earphones are placed relative to
`
`the user’s ears. Different headphone form factors mentioned in the ’934 Patent
`
`include in-ear, on-ear and over-ear earphones. BOSE-1001, 2:59-60. “In-ear”
`
`earphones have “earbuds” that are inserted into the user’s ears. KOSS-2047, ¶34;
`
`KOSS-2048, ¶8. Figures 1A and 1B of the ’934 Patent show wireless earbuds.
`
`Earbuds are small compared to other earphone form factors (like over-ear and on-
`
`ear). They cannot be too heavy or they would not stay in the user’s ear. And they
`
`cannot be too large (e.g., voluminous) or they would be uncomfortable for the user
`
`to wear. Also, they cannot get too hot when in use because of their close proximity
`
`to the user’s head when worn. Because of the size, weight, and temperature
`
`constraints, earbuds cannot use large, heavy batteries. KOSS-2047, ¶34; KOSS-
`
`2048, ¶14.
`
` “Over-ear” (sometimes called “circumaural”) earphones go around, or
`
`encompass, the user’s ears. “On-ear” (sometimes called “supra-aural”) earphones
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`have pads that press against the user’s ears, rather than around the ears. KOSS-2047,
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`¶35; KOSS-2048, ¶8. Fig. 1C of the ‘934 Patent shows on-ear headphones.
`
`C.
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner asserted, originally, that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) “would have had background in wireless networks, including at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field and experience with
`
`wireless networks, and would have worked on a team including members with
`
`headphone-design experience.” Pet., 6 (citing BOSE-1003, ¶¶30-37; BOSE-1005,
`
`¶¶41-45). The Board adopted Petitioner’s original skill level proposal for purposes
`
`of the Institution Decision. Paper 15, 9.
`
`Patent Owner proposes a slightly different skill level. Patent Owner submits
`
`that a POSA “would be someone working in the electrical engineering field and
`
`specializing in or knowledgeable of speaker components for small wireless devices.”
`
`KOSS-2047, ¶19. The POSA would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering and at least two years of work experience in the industry. Id.
`
`Accordingly, the POSA would have studied and have practical experience with
`
`circuit design, speaker components, and wireless communication. Id.
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed POSA skill level is more appropriate because: (i) the
`
`’934 Patent relates to headphones, as even Petitioner’s expert acknowledges (BOSE-
`
`1003, ¶30 (“The ’934 Patent involves technology in the field of wireless
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`communications for a consumer electronics device, in particular a wireless
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`headphone assembly …”) (emphasis added)); and (ii) under Patent Owner’s
`
`proposal, the POSA specializes in, or has knowledge of, speaker components for
`
`small wireless devices. Petitioner’s POSA does not have such skill. Instead,
`
`Petitioner’s POSA, at least as stated in the Petition and William’s Declaration
`
`(BOSE-1003, ¶¶34-35), is merely part of a team, where somebody else on the team
`
`has headphone-design experience. Pet., 7.
`
`D.
`
`Petitioner’s Evidence
`1.
`References
`Petitioner asserted that the Challenged Claims would have been obvious
`
`across eight total grounds (Grounds 1A-D and 2A-D). Pet., 2. Eight different
`
`references are used across the grounds: Schrager (BOSE-1101); Goldstein (BOSE-
`
`1026); Harada (BOSE-1098); Skulley (BOSE-1017); Hind (BOSE-1019); Rezvani-
`
`446 (BOSE-1097); Rezvani-875 (BOSE-1016); and Oh (BOSE-1099). Pet., 2.
`
`The primary reference for Grounds 1A-1D, Schrager, discloses a “voice-
`
`controlled multimedia and communications device” (VCMCD) that includes “two
`
`primary components”—a headset unit and a base unit—that communicate via a
`
`wireless link, such as Bluetooth. BOSE-1101, 4:66-5:5, 6:15-16. The base unit can
`
`include a CD player or “other music source ….” Id., 6:62-64. The wireless “headset
`
`unit” can include “two earpiece portions, each having a speaker disposed therein.”
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`Id., 5:2-14. Schrager does not disclose any further headset form factor details and,
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`in that connection, does not disclose TWS earbuds. BOSE-1101; KOSS-2047, ¶37.
`
`Goldstein discloses a “Personal Audio Assistant” (PAA) that is “incorporated
`
`within an earpiece ….” BOSE-1026, ¶[0017]. The PAA is “capable of digital audio
`
`playback ….” Id., ¶[0018]. The audio content is managed by a “Server system.”
`
`Id., ¶[0019]. The earpiece can be connected to the Server System via a wired or
`
`wireless connection. Id., ¶[0065]. Goldstein’s earpieces can include a TWS
`
`earpiece, such as shown in Goldstein’s Fig. 5A. BOSE-1026, Fig. 5A, ¶[0069].
`
`Harada pertains to an “electronic device,” particularly a cellular phone, with
`
`a prioritized list of registered, destination devices, which also can be cellular phones.
`
`BOSE-1098, ¶[0067]. A control unit of the electronic device can dynamically select
`
`one or more of the registered, destination devices based on the prioritized list and
`
`control communication with the selected destination device. BOSE-1098, ¶[0014].
`
`Hind discloses a system that provides secure firmware updates for a “device”
`
`with a programmable memory and a processing system. BOSE-1019, 2:38-41.
`
`Example devices are personal computers, pagers, cell phones, satellite receivers, set-
`
`top boxes, cable and DSL modems, routers, digital TVs, and appliances, like
`
`refrigerators, sewing machines, and ovens. Id., 1:50-55. Hind also discloses that
`
`with then “recent developments in short-range networking, such as Bluetooth radio
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`…, the present invention may be applicable to many new micro-controller based
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`products.” Id., 19:37-40. As an example, Hind provides that “a pair of wireless
`
`stereo headphones containing a microprocessor, memory, communication
`
`capability, and voice input/output capability could be securely upgraded to become
`
`a cellular telephone, a personal messaging system, a music-file download manager,
`
`or a pager, by means of a microcode download transmitted wirelessly from, for
`
`example, the Internet, based on the functionality paid for by the user.” Id., 19:40-
`
`47. Hind does not disclose any other details about headphone form factors.
`
`Skulley summarizes different types of headsets, including in-the-ear, on-the-
`
`ear and over-the-ear headsets. BOSE-1017, 1:21-34. Skulley, however, does not
`
`mention or describe TWS earbuds.
`
` The three references used in Grounds 2A-2D that are not used in Grounds
`
`1A-1D are Rezvani-446, Rezvani-875, and Oh.1 Rezvani-446 discloses a wireless
`
`headset in communication with a wireless portable media (WPM) server. BOSE-
`
`1097, ¶¶[0022], [0041], [0055], Figs. 4-5, 7. The WPM server can provide content
`
`to the wireless headset via a wireless link. Id., ¶[0004].
`
`Rezvani-875 discloses a multiple antenna, wireless headset in communication
`
`
`1 Grounds 2A-2D also rely on Skulley, Hind and Harada.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`with, among other things, a handset via, for example, a WiFi (IEEE 802.11) or
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Bluetooth (IEEE 802.15) link. BOSE-1016, ¶[0042], Fig. 9. While Rezvani-446
`
`and Rezvani-875 refer to wireless “headsets,” neither reference discloses any
`
`specific form factors for the wireless headsets. BOSE-1097, ¶[0055]; BOSE-1016,
`
`¶[0018]; BOSE-1003, ¶93; BOSE-1005, ¶129. Moreover, Petitioner’s obviousness
`
`theories for Ground 2A rely on an assertion that Rezvani-875’s Figure 2 shows a
`
`headset, but Rezvani-875 never refers to Figure 2 as a headset and what is depicted
`
`in Rezvani-875’s Figure 2 is inconsistent with a headset as explained herein.
`
`Of the references used in Grounds 2A-2D, only Oh discloses TWS earbuds.
`
`BOSE-1099, ¶¶17, 30; Figs. 1-2. Oh’s earbuds are shaped so that the tip that is
`
`inserted into the user’s ear (referred to as “inserting unit” in Oh) during use also fits
`
`into a mobile phone for easy carrying of the earbuds with the mobile phone when
`
`the earbuds are not in use. Id., ¶¶15-19. Oh’s earbuds include a “main body”
`
`connected to the “inserting unit.” Id., ¶30, Fig. 1.
`
`2.
`Testimony
`Petitioner relied on direct testimony from Dr. Tim Williams (“Williams”)
`
`(BOSE-1003) and Dr. John Casali (“Casali”) (BOSE-1005). Williams opined that
`
`the claims of the ’934 Patent would have been obvious. BOSE-1003, ¶81. Casali
`
`did not. BOSE-1005, ¶131 (“…I have not been asked to opine on … the obviousness
`
`of any claim as a whole”).
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Williams testified originally that a “POSA would have been an individual,
`
`particularly one with wireless networking experience, including at least a