`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`BOSE CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent No. 10,469,934
`_____________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 IS UNPATENTABLE ....................................... 2
` GROUND 1A: SCHRAGER-GOLDSTEIN......................................... 2
`GROUND 2A: REZVANI-REZVANI-SKULLEY-HIND .................. 5
`
`1.
`Hind Discloses Firmware Upgrades ........................................... 5
`2.
`Rezvani-875’s Figure 2 Discloses the Headset’s
`Components ................................................................................ 6
`THE SIGNAL STRENGTH CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ................ 10
` Koss’s Argument that Harada Fails to Disclose the Signal-
`Strength Limitation Ignores Harada’s Key Disclosures ..................... 10
`Koss Fails to Rebut the Reasons for the Harada-Based
`Combinations ....................................................................................... 14
`III. THE DEPENDENT CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................. 15
`Claims 34-41 Are Unpatentable .......................................................... 15
`
`1.
`Grounds 1A, 1C ........................................................................ 20
`2.
`Grounds 2C-2D ......................................................................... 20
`The DSP Claims Are Unpatentable ..................................................... 22
`1.
`Schrager-Goldstein Would Have Included DSPs for
`Sound Enhancement .................................................................. 22
`Rezvani-Rezvani-Skulley-Hind-Oh Would Have Used
`Rezvani-875’s DSP to Enhance Audio Output ......................... 24
`Implementing DSPs in True-Wireless Earbuds Required
`Only Ordinary Skill ................................................................... 25
`IV. KOSS’S COMMERCIAL SUCCESS ARGUMENT LACK NEXUS ......... 27
` No Presumptive Nexus Because Koss Failed to Show that
`AirPods Are “Coextensive” with Claim 1 or 58 ................................. 27
`1.
`Koss Failed to Establish that Either Claim 1 or 58
`Covers AirPods ......................................................................... 28
`Koss Failed to Address AirPods’ Unclaimed Features ............. 30
`2.
`Any Conceivable Nexus Has Been Rebutted ...................................... 31
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`No Commercial Success for Dependent Claims ................................. 32
`
` Dr. Williams Had No Obligation to Address Evidence Koss
`Had Not Raised. .................................................................................. 32
`V. KOSS’S CRITICISM OF DR. WILLIAMS IS MERITLESS ...................... 33
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 34
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Apple v. AliveCore,
`IPR2021-00970, Paper 10 (Dec. 8, 2021) ............................................................ 34
`BMW v. Carrum,
`IPR2019-00903, Paper 24 (Oct. 9, 2020) ............................................................... 3
`Bradium v. Iancu,
`923 F.3d 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................................. 3
`Demaco v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing,
`851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ..................................................................... 27, 31
`Eli Lilly v. Teva Pharms.,
`IPR2018-01423, Paper 7
`aff’d, 8 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................... 28
`EWP v. Reliance,
`755 F.2d 898 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 13
`Fleming v. Cirrus Design,
`2022 WL 710549 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2022) .......................................................... 4
`Fox Factory v. SRAM,
`944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................... passim
`In re Epstein,
`32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ....................................................................... 14, 26
`In re Fulton,
`391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 14
`KSR Int’l v. Teleflex,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 14
`Lectrosonics v. Zaxcom,
`IPR2018-01129, Paper 33Jan. 24, 2020) ....................................................... 27, 31
`Microsoft v. Synkloud,
`IPR2020-00316, Paper 43 (Jun. 14, 2021) .................................................... 28, 29
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ormco v. Align,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 31
`Syntex v. Apotex,
`407 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 4
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(4) ................................................................................................ 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`APPENDIX LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,469,934
`
`1002
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,469,934
`
`1003 Declaration of Tim A. Williams (“Williams”)
`
`1004 Curriculum Vitae of Tim A. Williams
`
`1005 Declaration of John G. Casali
`
`1006 Curriculum Vitae of John G. Casali
`
`1007
`
`PCT/US2009/039754
`
`1008 RESERVED
`
`1009 RESERVED
`
`1010 RESERVED
`
`1011 RESERVED
`
`1012 RESERVED
`
`1013
`
`PCT Publication No. WO2009/126614A1
`
`1014 RESERVED
`
`1015 RESERVED
`
`1016 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0165875 (“Rezvani-875”)
`
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 6,856,690 (“Skulley”)
`
`1018 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0142693
`
`1019 U.S. Patent No. 7,069,452 (“Hind”)
`
`- v -
`
`

`

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

`

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

`

`
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia) (May
`8, 2020)
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia) (June
`18, 2020)
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia) (July
`2, 2020)
`
`Seventh Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Aug. 6, 2020)
`
`Eighth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Sept. 21, 2020)
`
`1064 Ninth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Oct. 14, 2020)
`
`1065
`
`Tenth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Nov. 18, 2020)
`
`1066 RESERVED
`
`1067 RESERVED
`
`1068 RESERVED
`
`1069 Open Patent Matters Before J. Albright (W.D. Tex.) Not on Appeal, Lex
`Machina, https://law.lexmachina.com (last checked March 16, 2021)
`
`1070 Open Patent Matters Before J. Albright (W.D. Tex.) Not on Appeal
`Filed Before July 22, 2020, Lex Machina, https://law.lexmachina.com
`(last checked March 16, 2021)
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

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

`

`
`
`1085 U.S. Patent No. 9,049,502
`
`1086
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,049,502
`
`1087 U.S. Patent No. 9,438,987
`
`1088
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,438,987
`
`1089 U.S. Patent No. 9,497,535
`
`1090
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,497,535
`
`1091 U.S. Patent No. 9,729,959
`
`1092
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,729,959
`
`1093 U.S. Patent No. 9,986,325
`
`1094
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,986,325
`
`1095 U.S. Patent No. 10,206,025
`
`1096
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,206,025
`
`1097 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0136446 (“Rezvani-446”)
`
`1098 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0229014 (“Harada”)
`
`1099
`
`PCT/KR2006/000922 (PCT Publication No. WO 2006/098584A1)
`(“Oh”)
`
`1100 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0165720
`
`1101 U.S. Patent No. 7,072,686 (“Schrager”)
`
`1102 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0160820
`
`1103 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0197956
`
`1104 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0133734
`
`1105 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0204168
`
`- x -
`
`

`

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

`

`
`
`1123 Civil Docket, Bose Corp. v. Koss Corp., 1-20-cv-12193-RGS (D. Mass.)
`(as of March 16, 2021)
`1124 Civil Docket, VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., 1:19-cv-00977-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.) (as of March 1, 2021)
`
`1125
`
`Plaintiff Koss Corporation’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions,
`Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 6:20-cv-00661 (W.D. Tex.)
`1126 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0098878
`1127 U.S. Patent No. 6,097,809
`1128 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0167187
`1129 Complaint, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., 6-20-cv-00665 (W.D. Tex.)
`(filed July 23, 2020)
`1130 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0068610
`1131 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0201585
`1132 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0073460
`1133 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0100274
`1134 U.S. Patent No. 7,065,342
`1135 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0041697
`1136 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0228019
`1137 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0089181
`1138 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0143105
`1139 U.S. Patent No. 7,738,434
`1140 U.S. Patent No. 5,815,582
`1141
`PCT Publication No. WO2009/086555A1
`1142 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0147079
`
`- xii -
`
`

`

`
`
`1143 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0109894
`1144 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0094822
`1145 Declaration of Nathan R. Speed in Support of Motion for Admission Pro
`Hac Vice
`1146 Deposition Transcript of Joseph C. McAlexander III (Mar. 1, 2022)
`(“McAlexander-Depo.”)
`1147 Deposition Transcript of Nicholas S. Blair (Feb. 28, 2022) (“Blair-
`Depo.”)
`1148 U.S. Patent No. 6,516,346
`1149 U.S. Patent No. 4,494,189
`1150 Apple’s Second Amended Answer, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No.
`6:20-cv-00665-ADA (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2021)
`1151 Koss’s Patent Owner Response in IPR2021-00297 (Paper 22) (Aug. 27,
`2021)
`1152 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0134696
`1153 Order Denying Motion to Compel (ECF 123), Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`6:20-cv-00665-ADA (W.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2022)
`1154 Koss Corp.’s 10-K (Fiscal Year 2013)
`1155 Koss’s Sur-Reply in IPR2021-00381 (Paper 34) (Feb. 8, 2022)
`1156
`Prosecution History for PCT/US2008/088656
`1157 Exhibit B-5 to Plaintiff Koss Corporation’s Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions, Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 6:20-cv-00661 (W.D. Tex.)
`1158 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0225035
`1159 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0090078
`1160 Reply Declaration of Tim A. Williams, Ph.D. (Mar. 25, 2022)
`(“Williams-Reply”)
`
`- xiii -
`
`

`

`
`
`The Board should maintain its preliminary determination that the Petition’s
`
`Schrager-Goldstein grounds (1A-1D) and Rezvani-Rezvani grounds (2A-2D) render
`
`the challenged claims unpatentable. Paper 15 (“ID”), 20-43.
`
`Koss’s Response (“POR”) presents frivolous counterarguments. For instance,
`
`Koss argues that Rezvani-875 fails to disclose claim elements like a “processor”
`
`because Rezvani-875’s Figure 2—which shows baseband processor 225 and
`
`microprocessor 235—purportedly is not part of the headset. POR, 23.
`
`Yet Rezvani-875’s Figure 2 unquestionably is part of the headset, as Koss
`
`itself told this Board in IPR2021-00297:
`
`Rezvani’s headset includes an “output 229” (BOSE-1016,1 Fig. 2)…
`Rezvani’s headset also includes a baseband processor 225 and a
`microprocessor 235 (BOSE-1016, Fig. 2)…
`
`Ex. 1151, 10. Infra § I.B.2.
`
`Koss also relies on commercial success of Apple’s AirPods, but wrongly
`
`seeks a “presumption” of nexus (1) based on claim charts improperly incorporated
`
`by reference; (2) without even identifying a claimed “server,” let alone explaining
`
`how key limitations of the independent claims are met; and (3) without any showing
`
`that AirPods are “coextensive” with any challenged claim as required under Fox
`
`Factory v. SRAM, 944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Infra § IV.A.
`
`
`1 Ex. 1016 in IPR2021-00297 is Rezvani-875.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 IS UNPATENTABLE
`
` GROUND 1A: SCHRAGER-GOLDSTEIN
`
`Koss argues that Bose “failed to show that the firmware updates in Goldstein
`
`come from Goldstein’s Server.” POR, 16. Koss misinterprets Goldstein and
`
`disregards how POSAs would have implemented Schrager-Goldstein.
`
`Goldstein [0078] says PAA-enabled devices have a “Communications Port”
`
`that supports communication “with the Server system,” and [0082] says the
`
`“Communications Port” receives “incoming transmissions” like “updates to the
`
`firmware.” Williams ¶96, 133; Petition, 28. Goldstein thus explicitly connects its
`
`Server to the firmware updates.
`
`Moreover, Goldstein’s “Server,” not “Clients,” is what “controls centrally
`
`held data” in the system. Goldstein, [0063]; [0039]. Firmware is a type of “centrally
`
`held data” that a system would conventionally store in a central repository, e.g.,
`
`Goldstein’s Server. Williams-Reply ¶7; McAlexander-Depo., 98-104 (firmware
`
`conventionally maintained on manufacturer’s servers). Consistent with this
`
`understanding, Goldstein also explains its Server maintains “Control Data” ([0094]),
`
`which per Goldstein “dicate[s] system behavior” and is stored in a PAA-enabled
`
`device’s “non-volatile program memory” ([0078], [0096], Figs. 3-4). See also
`
`[0041]. POSAs knew firmware was a type of “Control Data” that Goldstein’s Server
`
`alone would maintains. Williams-Reply ¶¶8-9; McAlexander-Depo., 84-85.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Koss does not dispute that storing firmware on, and distributing it from, a
`
`central server was known. McAlexander-Depo., 104:8-23; Williams-Reply ¶5. In
`
`Schrager-Goldstein, there is only one central server—Goldstein’s Server. Koss
`
`hypothesizes an “arbitrary server” for firmware (POR, 20-21) but no such “other”
`
`server is described in Goldstein or used in Schrager-Goldstein.
`
`Koss similarly speculates Goldstein’s headphones could get firmware from
`
`client computers. POR, 17-18. But, as Mr. McAlexander admitted, firmware is
`
`conventionally distributed via a server that a manufacturer controls. McAlexander-
`
`Depo., 98-104, 108-110. In Schrager-Goldstein, that server is Goldstein’s Server.
`
`Therefore, if a client computer provided Schrager-Goldstein’s headphones with
`
`firmware, the computer received that firmware from the Server, and Koss alleges
`
`that indirectly transmitting firmware from a server to headphones via another device
`
`satisfies claim 1. Ex. 2037, 535 (AirPods receiving firmware via iPhone).
`
`Finally, even if some unidentified device other than Goldstein’s Server could
`
`transmit firmware updates to PAA-enabled devices, that critique “attack[s
`
`Goldstein] individually,” rather than the Petition’s combination, which relied on
`
`more than Goldstein’s express disclosure. Bradium v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1050
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019). Goldstein “at a minimum suggests using” its Server to transmit
`
`firmware. BMW v. Carrum, IPR2019-00903, Paper 24, 15 (Oct. 9, 2020) (claim
`
`obvious where art “at a minimum suggest[ed]” limitation).
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Dr. Williams unambiguously explained that transmitting firmware updates
`
`from a remote server, like Goldstein’s Server, “had known benefits” and he cited
`
`Hind as corroboration. Williams ¶96 (cited Petition, 14). He then said those benefits
`
`gave POSAs reason “to design a system that can seamlessly download and apply
`
`these firmware upgrades along with the ‘seamlessly downloaded’ audio content” that
`
`Goldstein’s Server provides. Id. Dr. Williams was explicit that POSAs had reason
`
`apart from Goldstein’s disclosure to implement Schrager-Goldstein such that
`
`Goldstein’s Server transmitted firmware. Williams ¶¶96-97, 134 (cited Petition, 14,
`
`28); Williams-Reply ¶11.
`
`Koss did not dispute the benefits Dr. Williams identified were known or that
`
`POSAs could use ordinary skill to transmit firmware updates from Goldstein’s
`
`Server. Bose, therefore, demonstrated POSAs had reason to include the claimed
`
`firmware-technique in Schrager-Goldstein, even apart from Goldstein’s disclosure.
`
`Fleming v. Cirrus Design, 2022 WL 710549, *6 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2022) (“That
`
`the proposed combination of James and POH—rather than one of the individual
`
`references—discloses the disputed claim limitations does not defeat the Board’s
`
`conclusion of obviousness. In this case, it is sufficient that a [POSA] would have
`
`been motivated to combine the prior art in a way such that the combination discloses
`
`the claim limitations.”); Syntex v. Apotex, 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`(“What a reference teaches or suggests” to POSAs “is not…limited to what a
`
`reference specifically ‘talks about’ or what is specifically ‘mentioned’...”).
`
` GROUND 2A: REZVANI-REZVANI-SKULLEY-HIND
`1. Hind Discloses Firmware Upgrades
`
`Ground 2A relied on Hind’s disclosure of devices, including a “wireless stereo
`
`headphone,” obtaining “firmware” from remote servers via a network connection.
`
`Petition, 55, 57-58. Koss does not dispute Bose’s showing that Hind teaches
`
`(1) sending firmware updates from servers to devices over a network and (2) doing
`
`so had known benefits. Id.; Williams ¶¶294-299, 308-313.
`
`Koss instead argues that Hind’s reference to “microcode” in Column 19
`
`injects ambiguity because “microcode” might differ from “firmware.” POR, 21-23.
`
`Tellingly, Koss’s expert offered no such opinion.
`
`“Microcode” is another name for “firmware.”
`
` Ex. 1148, 1:13-15
`
`(“microcode[] alternatively called firmware”); Ex. 1149, 10:14-15 (“microcode (i.e.,
`
`firmware)”); Williams-Reply ¶¶12-15. This is consistent with Hind’s explanation
`
`that firmware “control[s]” a device’s “computational elements…to give the device
`
`its functional personality” (1:23-29) and that microcode likewise “control[s] a
`
`digital signal processor” and adds “new functions” to it (19:37-47). The record
`
`confirms POSAs knew “microcode” is “firmware,” as Dr. Williams testified.
`
`Williams ¶¶313, 344.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Finally, setting aside “microcode” in Hind Column 19, Ground 2A also relied
`
`on Hind’s numerous disclosures of downloading “firmware” to devices from a
`
`server, and the benefits of doing so. Petition, 55, 57-58; Williams ¶¶294-299, 308-
`
`313; POR, 9 (conceding Hind discloses “firmware updates” for devices). Koss
`
`ignores these disclosures that independently support the grounds.
`
`2.
`
`Rezvani-875’s Figure 2 Discloses the Headset’s Components
`
`The Petition
`
`identified certain headset-related claim elements (e.g.,
`
`“processor,” “microphone”) in Rezvani-875’s Figure 2. Petition, 59-70. Koss
`
`argues that Figure 2 does not depict headset components (POR, 23).
`
`Koss’s argument is frivolous. As noted earlier, Koss already told this Board
`
`that Figure 2 depicts components of Rezvani-875’s headset. Figure 2, below, shows
`
`“baseband processor 225,” and “microprocessor 235,” and Koss—citing Figure 2—
`
`told the Board that “Rezvani’s headset includes” both. Ex. 1151, 10.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Koss was correct. Indeed, Rezvani-875’s [0038] and [0047] state,
`
`respectively, “As shown in FIG. 2, the headset may have an optional power
`
`management algorithm” and “As shown in FIG. 2, the headset has a power
`
`management algorithm.”2 Figure 2 is clearly in the headset. Williams-Reply
`
`¶¶17-20.
`
`
`2 Koss mischaracterizes [0038], suggesting it conveys only that the headset can have
`
`power management “like” in Figure 2. POR, 25-26. It does not say that. Williams-
`
`Reply ¶19. Koss ignores [0047].
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Further, Rezvani-875’s Figure 1 is a “block diagram showing the features of
`
`the headset” ([0005]):
`
`
`Figure 2 “illustrates the subsystems that support the various functionalities,”
`
`i.e., those Figure 1 depicts. Rezvani-875, [0006], [0019]-[0020]. Thus, Figure 2
`
`plainly depicts subsystem hardware components within the headset. Williams
`
`¶¶279-285, 314-337; Williams-Reply ¶¶21-22.
`
`That all of Rezvani-875’s “embodiments” and claims are directed to a headset
`
`reinforces this conclusion. Rezvani-875, Title; [0002], [0015]-[0016], claims 1-54;
`
`Williams-Reply ¶23. So too do other disclosures explicitly connecting Figure 1’s
`
`functionalities to Figure 2’s hardware components, and tying both to a headset.
`
`Williams-Reply ¶¶24-27.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Koss offers three baseless reasons for reversing itself on Figure 2.
`
`First, Koss argues “Rezvani-875 never states that Figure 2 shows a headset.”
`
`POR, 23. To the contrary, [0038] and [0047] expressly state that headset
`
`components are “shown” in Figure 2.
`
`Second, Koss argues that Figures 1 and 2 depict different devices because they
`
`use different reference numerals (100 and 200). POR, 23-24. But, consistent with
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(4), Figures 1 and 2 plainly depict different “parts” of the
`
`headphone: a functional “part” (Figure 1) and a hardware “part” (Figure 2).
`
`Rezvani-875, [0005]-[0006], [0019]-[0021].
`
`Third, Koss argues that Figure 2’s components are consistent with a
`
`cellphone. POR, 24-25. But Rezvani-875’s novelty was a headset with functionality
`
`conventionally associated with cellphones. Figure 2 includes a SIM card because
`
`Rezvani-875’s headset supports “cellular phone standards,” a USB interface
`
`because music “may be loaded into the headset memory…via a USB high-speed
`
`data port,” solar cells because the headset uses “solar power,” and a DC input to
`
`“charge the battery.” Rezvani-875, [0019], [0021], [0033], [0039]. Williams-Reply
`
`¶¶28-30. In reversing what it previously told the Board, Koss ignores all these
`
`disclosures.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`II. THE SIGNAL STRENGTH CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`Bose explained why, in view of Harada, POSAs would have implemented the
`
`headset in Schrager-Goldstein (Grounds 1B, 1D) or Rezvani-Rezvani-Oh-Hind
`
`(Ground 2D) such that it performs the “signal strength” limitation recited in
`
`independent claim 58 and certain claims depending from claim 1.
`
` Koss’s Argument that Harada Fails to Disclose the Signal-
`Strength Limitation Ignores Harada’s Key Disclosures
`
`Koss argues that Harada’s “electronic device,” which switches between
`
`“destination devices,” is only a “cellular phone.” POR, 27. To the contrary, Harada
`
`explains, “the device may be configured as an electronic device 60 other than the
`
`cellular phone….” Harada, [0146]; Williams ¶197. Compare Harada’s Fig. 1
`
`(“cellular phone”) with Fig. 15 (“electronic device”).
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Koss also argues erroneously that the “only” signal strength Harada discloses
`
`for its switching is “a signal strength of the wireless signal between the destination
`
`devices and a base station for the destination device.” POR, 30 (Koss’s emphasis).
`
`To the contrary, Harada discloses numerous pieces of “dynamic information”
`
`as switching criteria (“selection factors”). While one selection factor in a device’s
`
`decision to switch between destination devices 61-6N can be the signal strength
`
`between those destination devices (if they are cellphones) and their respective
`
`cellular base stations, Harada discloses other factors—prominent among them, the
`
`signal strength between the device and the destination devices. Indeed, this is the
`
`first factor listed in [0011]:
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`[T]he present invention…improves availability of a device by referring
`to dynamic information as a selection factor, such as [1] a received
`signal level of the short-range wireless communication function
`between devices, [2] a position of a device and a time, or [3] a received
`signal level from a base station of a cellular phone, [4] a remaining
`battery power amount of the cellular phone, [5] a phone call status, etc.
`
`See also Williams ¶209; Williams-Reply ¶¶31-34; McAlexander-Depo., 143-144
`
`(admitting Harada “mak[es] a selection in part based on the signal strength”).
`
`Notably, the POR ignored Harada’s paragraph [0011].
`
`Koss cites sentences describing base station signal levels as a potential
`
`selection factor if the destination device is a cellular phone: “If the registered device
`
`is a cellular phone” ([0078]); “As an example, if the registered devices are cellular
`
`phones” ([0085]). But the immediately preceding sentence of [0085] describes
`
`switching based on short-range signal strength between the devices themselves:
`
`As an example of connection to one or more devices selected from the
`devices 61 to 6N…the connection can be achieved with the device
`with the highest received signal level by monitoring the received
`signal level of the short-range wireless communication.”
`
`See Williams ¶210; Williams-Reply ¶35.
`
`Again, the POR selectively quoted from [0085], ignoring this key disclosure.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Harada [0067], cited by Koss (POR, 27), further reinforces that Harada
`
`discloses the signal strength limitation: “the connection destination of the cellular
`
`phone 4 is one or more devices…in accordance with dynamic information such
`
`as…received signal levels.” Williams-Reply ¶¶36-38. [0067] likewise confirms
`
`that the destination devices are “any devices” with Bluetooth functionality. That
`
`destination devices are not limited to cellphones underscores that the base station
`
`signal-strength selection factor—which applies only to cellphones—is simply one
`
`embodiment. Williams-Reply ¶¶39-41.
`
`Finally, Koss cites Harada [0109]-[0112] (POR, 30), which in context also
`
`reinforces Harada’s disclosure of the signal strength limitation. [0109]-[0112]
`
`describe Figure 9, which shows switching based on a signal level received by a cell
`
`phone destination device from a base station (step S208). By contrast, Figure 8
`
`shows—consistent with the extensive disclosures cited in the Petition—switching
`
`based on signal strength between a device and destination devices. Harada, [0103]-
`
`[0107] & Fig. 8 (step S28). Williams-Reply ¶¶42-44.
`
`
`
`“A reference must be considered for everything it teaches.” EWP v. Reliance,
`
`755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Harada unambiguously teaches transitions
`
`based on signal strength between devices as claimed.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
` Koss Fails to Rebut the Reasons
`for the Harada-Based Combinations
`
`Koss ignores the Petition’s reasons for using Harada’s signal-strength-based
`
`switching in the Petition’s combinations. Petition, 42-44, 49-50, 83-84.
`
`Koss
`
`instead argues
`
`that measuring and storing connection-related
`
`information, per Harada, would have dissuaded a POSA because it (1) drains the
`
`battery and (2) requires “down time” at startup. POR, 34-37. Koss impermissibly
`
`treats POSAs as automatons. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 418-20 (2007).
`
`That the ’025 patent itself describes measuring signal strength an