`
`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
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
