IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Seung Jin Kim
`In re Patent of:
`10,609,198
`U.S. Patent No.:
`March 31, 2020
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 15/694,736
`Filing Date:
`September 1, 2017
`Title:
`PERSONAL MEDIA SYSTEM INCLUDING BASE STATION
`AND WIRELESS EARBUD
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 39521-0093PS1
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JEREMY COOPERSTOCK
`I, Jeremy Cooperstock, of Montreal, Canada, declare that:
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
`I am a professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`1.
`
`I.
`2.
`
`Engineering at McGill University. My curriculum vitae is provided (as Appendix
`
`A).
`
`3.
`
`I received my B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering from the University of
`
`British Columbia, my M.Sc. in Computer Science from the University of Toronto
`
`in 1992, and my Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University
`
`of Toronto in 1996.
`
`4.
`
`I am a member of the Centre for Intelligent Machines, and a founding
`
`member of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and
`
`Technology at McGill University. I also direct the Shared Reality Lab at McGill,
`
`which focuses on computer mediation to facilitate high-fidelity human
`
`communication and the synthesis of perceptually engaging, multimodal, immersive
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`
`
`Seung Jin Kim
`In re Patent of:
`10,609,198
`U.S. Patent No.:
`March 31, 2020
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 15/694,736
`Filing Date:
`September 1, 2017
`Title:
`PERSONAL MEDIA SYSTEM INCLUDING BASE STATION
`AND WIRELESS EARBUD
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 39521-0093PS1
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JEREMY COOPERSTOCK
`I, Jeremy Cooperstock, of Montreal, Canada, declare that:
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
`I am a professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`1.
`
`I.
`2.
`
`Engineering at McGill University. My curriculum vitae is provided (as Appendix
`
`A).
`
`3.
`
`I received my B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering from the University of
`
`British Columbia, my M.Sc. in Computer Science from the University of Toronto
`
`in 1992, and my Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University
`
`of Toronto in 1996.
`
`4.
`
`I am a member of the Centre for Intelligent Machines, and a founding
`
`member of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and
`
`Technology at McGill University. I also direct the Shared Reality Lab at McGill,
`
`which focuses on computer mediation to facilitate high-fidelity human
`
`communication and the synthesis of perceptually engaging, multimodal, immersive
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`
`
`environments. I led the development of the Intelligent Classroom, the world's first
`
`Internet streaming demonstrations of Dolby Digital 5.1, multiple simultaneous
`
`streams of uncompressed high-definition video, a high-fidelity orchestra rehearsal
`
`simulator, a simulation environment that renders graphic, audio, and vibrotactile
`
`effects in response to footsteps, and a mobile game treatment for amblyopia.
`
`5. My work on the Ultra-Videoconferencing system was recognized by
`
`an award for Most Innovative Use of New Technology from ACM/IEEE
`
`Supercomputing and a Distinction Award from the Audio Engineering Society.
`
`The research I supervised on the Autour project earned the Hochhausen Research
`
`Award from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and an Impact Award
`
`from the Canadian Internet Registry Association, and my Real-Time Emergency
`
`Response project won the Gold Prize (brainstorm round) of the Mozilla Ignite
`
`Challenge.
`
`6.
`
`I have worked with IBM at the Haifa Research Center, Israel, and the
`
`Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, the Sony Computer
`
`Science Laboratory in Tokyo, Japan, and was a visiting professor at Bang &
`
`Olufsen, Denmark, where I conducted research on telepresence technologies as
`
`part of the World Opera Project. I led the theme of Enabling Technologies for a
`
`Networks of Centres of Excellence on Graphics, Animation, and New Media
`
`(GRAND) and I am an associate editor of the Journal of the AES.
`
`2
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I have carried out significant research involving network
`
`communication protocols, including wireless communication employing IEEE
`
`802.11 (WiFi) and IEEE 802.15 (Bluetooth). My experience in these areas
`
`includes development of the Adaptive File Distribution Protocol (AFDP, 1995),
`
`analysis of the tradeoffs between bandwidth, power demands, and latency for audio
`
`streaming over WiFi, Bluetooth, and ultra-wideband protocols (2007), and
`
`assessment of the performance and scalability of wireless audio streaming for
`
`applications requiring latency-optimized multimedia streaming (2008). I have led
`
`all aspects of development and experimentation in the Autour project (2009-2016),
`
`for which Bluetooth is typically used as a communication layer for audio between
`
`the user’s smartphone and a wireless headset, or, experimentally, to transmit user
`
`input acquired from a wireless game controller. I am currently leading a research
`
`project (MIMIC), which communicates sensor data between two coupled
`
`smartwatches using Bluetooth for local communication between the smartwatches
`
`and their peered smartphones, and the public Internet between the smartphones. I
`
`am also leading a project that uses both Bluetooth and WiFi communication
`
`between smartphones, a GPU-based physics engine, and a microelectronics
`
`architecture that renders vibrotactile effects on mobile footwear.
`
`8. My experience in academic and practical situations as well as my
`
`hands on experience with wireless communication systems such as Bluetooth
`
`3
`
`
`
`systems provides me with an appreciation of the technology involved with U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,609,198 (“the ’198 Patent” or APPLE-1001).
`
`9.
`
`I have been retained by Fish & Richardson, P.C., on behalf of Apple
`
`Inc., to offer technical opinions relating to the ’198 Patent, and prior art references
`
`relating to its subject matter. In writing this Declaration, I have considered the
`
`following: my own knowledge and experience, including my teaching and work
`
`experience in the above fields; and my experience of working with others involved
`
`in those fields.
`
`10.
`
`I have reviewed the ’198 Patent (“APPLE-1001”) and relevant
`
`excerpts of the prosecution history of the ’198 Patent (“the Prosecution History” or
`
`“APPLE-1002”). Additionally, I have reviewed the following:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,401,219 to Hankey et al. (“Hankey” or “APPLE-
`
`1004”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,086,281 to Rabu et al. (“Rabu” or “APPLE-1005”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,270,915 to Sanford et al. (“Sanford” or “APPLE-
`
`1006”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,078,787 to Lydon et al. (“Lydon” or “APPLE-
`
`1007”)
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0125040 to Kalayjian
`
`(“Kalayjian” or “APPLE-1008”)
`
`4
`
`
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,218,530 to Davis et al. (“Davis” or “APPLE-1010”)
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0281475 to Jain et al.
`
`(“Jain” or “APPLE-1011”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,838,184 to Burnett et al. (“Burnett” or “APPLE-
`
`1012”)
`
`• Excerpts of McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering, ISBN 0-07-144210-3, 2004 (“APPLE-1013”)
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0272561 to Kim et al.
`
`(“Kim” or “APPLE-1015”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,548,381 to Dua (“Dua” or “APPLE-1016”)
`
`• U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/142,978 (“’978
`
`Provisional” or “APPLE-1017”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 10,455,066 (“’066 Patent” or “APPLE-1018”)
`
`• U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/879,177 (“APPLE-1020”)
`
`• U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/879,195 (“APPLE-1021”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,489,151 to Van Engelen et al. (“APPLE-1044”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,737,650 to Pederson (“APPLE-1045”)
`
`• Jabra Eclipse User Manuel (2015) (“APPLE-1046”)
`
`• U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0306393 to Goldman et al.
`
`(“APPLE-1047”)
`
`5
`
`
`
`11. Each of these foregoing references other than Kim are documents,
`
`which, to my knowledge, would have been publicly available prior to April, 2015.
`
`Kim is a patent application publication with a filing date in 2014.
`
`12. Counsel has informed me that I should consider these materials
`
`through the lens of a person having ordinary skill in the art related to the ’198
`
`Patent at the time of the earliest purported priority date of the ’198 Patent, and I
`
`have done so during my review of these materials. The ’198 Patent claims priority
`
`to provisional application 62/142,978 filed on April 3, 2015. See APPLE-1001,
`
`Face. While I am not opining on whether the ’198 Patent is entitled to this priority
`
`date, for purposes of this declaration and to review and apply prior art references
`
`only, I am using the April 3, 2015 as the purported priority date (hereinafter the
`
`“Critical Date”).
`
`13. Based upon my experience in this area and taking into account the
`
`above references, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’198 Patent
`
`(a “POSITA”) would have had at least a Bachelor's Degree in an academic area
`
`emphasizing electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and
`
`at least two years of experience in wireless communications across short distance
`
`or local area networks. Superior education could compensate for a deficiency in
`
`work experience, and vice-versa.
`
`6
`
`
`
`14.
`
`I base this characterization of a POSITA in view of my professional,
`
`academic, and personal experiences, including my knowledge of colleagues and
`
`others at the time of the invention of the ’198 Patent on or shortly before the
`
`Critical Date. Specifically, my experience working with industry, undergraduate
`
`and post-graduate students, colleagues from academia, and designers and engineers
`
`practicing in industry has allowed me to become directly and personally familiar
`
`with the level of skill of individuals and the general state of the art. I am familiar
`
`with the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical Date.
`
`15.
`
`I have no financial interest in either party or in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding. I am being compensated for my work as an expert on an hourly basis,
`
`for all tasks involved. My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of these
`
`proceedings or on the content of my opinions.
`
`16. My opinions, as explained below, are based on my education,
`
`experience, and background in the fields discussed above. Unless otherwise stated,
`
`my testimony below refers to the knowledge of a POSITA in the fields as of the
`
`Critical Date.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
`17. This expert Declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed
`
`based on my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior art references
`
`listed above. To summarize, I have concluded that:
`
`• Hankey, which incorporates Rabu and Sanford, in combination with
`
`Kalayjian renders claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 15, 19, 21, 25, and 27 obvious.
`
`• Hankey, which incorporates Rabu and Sanford, in combination with
`
`Kalayjian and Lydon renders claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25,
`
`and 27 obvious.
`
`• Hankey, which incorporates Rabu and Sanford, in combination with
`
`Kalayjian, (alone or with Lydon) and Dua renders claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9,
`
`12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25, and 27 obvious.
`
`• Hankey, which incorporates Rabu and Sanford, in combination with
`
`Kalayjian, (alone or with one or both of Lydon and Dua) and Burnett
`
`renders claim 12 obvious.
`
`• Hankey, which incorporates Rabu and Sanford, in combination with
`
`Kalayjian, (alone or with one or both of Lydon and Dua) and Kim
`
`renders claim 29 obvious.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`III.
`
`18.
`
`INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ’198 PATENT CLAIMS AT
`ISSUE
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this post grant review
`
`proceeding, the terms appearing in a patent claim should be interpreted according
`
`to their “ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In that regard, I understand that the best indicator of claim
`
`meaning is its usage in the context of the patent specification as understood by a
`
`POSITA. I further understand that the words of the claims should be given their
`
`plain meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent with the patent specification or
`
`the patent’s history of examination before the Patent Office. I also understand that
`
`the words of the claims should be interpreted as they would have been interpreted
`
`by a POSITA at the time of the invention was made (not today). Because I do not
`
`know at what date the invention as claimed was made, if ever, I have used the
`
`Critical Date of the ’198 Patent as the point in time for claim interpretation
`
`purposes. My opinion does not change if the invention date is earlier.
`
`19. Fish & Richardson provided me a copy of the Joint Identification of
`
`Claim Terms and Proposed Constructions in Pinn, Inc. v. Apple Inc./Google
`
`LLC/Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Case No. 8:19-cv-01805-DOC-JDE)
`
`(“JCC”), which is also exhibit APPLE-1014. I reviewed the constructions offered
`
`by the Petitioner and Patent Owner (when I refer to Patent Owner constructions
`
`9
`
`
`
`here onwards, I am referring to Patent Owner’s constructions in the above-noted
`
`related litigation proceedings). Specific terms are being construed by Petitioner
`
`and Patent Owner as follows:
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`
`“wirelessly pairing” / “wireless pairing”
`
`Establishing a trusted relationship
`
`No construction necessary, or
`
`between two devices that allows them
`
`alternatively, establish[ing] a
`
`to connect wirelessly, such as
`
`connection between two devices to
`
`Bluetooth pairing
`
`relay information
`
`“wirelessly paired”
`
`A trusted relationship is established
`
`No construction necessary, or
`
`between two devices that allows them
`
`alternatively, a connection is
`
`to connect wirelessly
`
`established between two devices to
`
`relay information
`
`“smartphone”
`
`Handheld mobile phone that performs
`
`No construction necessary, or
`
`many of the functions of a computer
`
`alternatively, a mobile phone that
`
`performs many of the functions of a
`
`computer, typically having a
`
`touchscreen interface, Internet access,
`
`10
`
`
`
`and an operating system capable of
`
`running downloaded applications
`
`“mobile application”
`
`A software application installed on a
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning, or
`
`mobile computing device separate from
`
`alternatively, a software application
`
`its operating system
`
`APPLE-1014, 26.
`
`installed on a mobile computing device
`
`20. As I explain in more detail below, the following terms would benefit
`
`from additional explanations because the ’198 Patent does not utilize or describe
`
`these terms in a manner that would help a POSITA understand them.
`
`• “the circuitry … configured to … obtain characteristics of the
`
`wireless earbud and send the characteristics to the at least one
`
`processor” (claims 1, 21, 27)
`
`• “communication module configured to interface data communication
`
`with at least one of the smartphone and the wireless earbud” (claims
`
`9, 15, 17, 19)
`
`A.
`“circuitry”
`21. The term “circuitry” is associated with the functions of obtaining and
`
`sending characteristics in the claims. See e.g., claims 1, 21, and 27 of the ’198
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent. However, the ’198 Patent does not describe the structure in the “circuitry”
`
`that could perform the associated functions.
`
`22.
`
`I searched the ’198 Patent specification for recitations of the word
`
`“circuitry.” In one instance, circuitry is described as “measur[ing] the impedance
`
`and/or other characteristics of the connector (e.g., the earbud connector 118) that
`
`plugs into the main body connector 116.” APPLE-1001, 6:14-17. Thus, the ’198
`
`specification only discloses functions that can be attributed to the “circuitry” but
`
`not any structure.
`
`23.
`
`Interestingly, the only indication I was able to find of how “circuitry”
`
`may be interpreted is from the Patent Owner’s proposed construction in related
`
`litigation proceedings. In the JCC, the Patent Owner contends that “circuitry”
`
`should be given its ordinary meaning or, alternatively, the “corresponding
`
`structure” of the “circuitry” “includes: base station connector(s) (e.g., item 504 in
`
`Fig. 7) or switch, and wiring (or other circuitry) to place such connector(s) or
`
`switch in electrical communication with the processor. See also ’066 Patent
`
`(APPLE-1014), Figs. 5A-12 ; 1:28-3:19; 5:5-16; 6:16-24; 7:16-38; 8:15-40; 8:50-
`
`9:12; 11:25-35; 11:58-64; 12:29-42; 12:60-13:9; 13:19-29; 14:65-20:3;22:37-
`
`23:26; 26:9-55; 28:29-38; 30:6-10; 31:26-32:57; claims 1, 9, 10, 17, 30, 32, 34,
`
`36.” APPLE-1014, 26 (“See Term No. 10”), 21-23 (Term No. 10).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`24. The Patent Owner did not provide any additional explanation
`
`indicating the rationale supporting Patent Owner’s position. Given the lack of any
`
`other evidence indicating what “circuitry” may be, while I do not necessarily agree
`
`with the Patent Owner, I have utilized Patent Owner’s proffered construction in
`
`mapping the prior art references in the asserted grounds below.
`
`B.
`“communication module”
`25. The term “communication module” is associated with the function of
`
`interfacing data communication with at least one of the smartphone and the
`
`wireless earbud in the claims. See e.g., claims 9, 15, 17, and 19 of the ’198 Patent.
`
`26. Referring to FIG. 3, the ’198 Patent depicts a communications module
`
`302 and a communications module 304 in the personal wireless media station 300
`
`and explains that “[t]he communications module 302 may use Bluetooth
`
`technology” and “[t]he communications module 304 may use Bluetooth
`
`technology.” APPLE-1001, 10:14-15, 10:34-35.
`
`13
`
`
`
`APPLE-1001, (’198 Patent), FIG. 3
`
`
`
`27. Although, the ’198 Patent notes that the communications modules 302
`
`and 304 are “not limited as such and may be implemented using any wireless
`
`communications standards currently available or developed in the future,” the ’198
`
`Patent provides no description of any other wireless communications standards.
`
`APPLE-1001, 10:15-18, 10:35-38. Thus, at best, the ’198 Patent describes a
`
`communication module as including a Bluetooth module with an ability to connect
`
`with some other modules and devices.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner contends that “communication
`
`module” should be given its ordinary meaning or, alternatively that the structure
`
`corresponding to “communication module” includes “software and/or hardware
`
`comprising a wireless communications component (e.g., item 502 in Fig. 7)
`
`14
`
`
`
`including, but not limited to, a communication component based on Bluetooth (or
`
`other wireless communication standards) technology. See also ’066 Patent at: Figs.
`
`7-12; 1:24-3:5; 12:18-59; 24:10-26:8; claims 5, 13, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28 and 33.”
`
`APPLE-1014, 23-25.
`
`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’198 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`I have reviewed the ’198 Patent, which generally relates to a “personal
`
`29.
`
`wireless media station.” APPLE-1001, 5:1-5. The personal wireless media station
`
`100 includes a main body 102 and a wireless earbud 104, as shown in FIG. 1
`
`below. APPLE-1001, 5:4-5, 5:59-61.
`
`main body
`
`display
`screen
`
`clip
`
`connector
`
`wireless
`earbud
`
`’198 Patent (APPLE-1001), FIG. 1
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`30.
`
`“The main body 102 includes a clip 106, a speaker 108, a light-
`
`emitting diode (LED) light indicator 110, a microphone 112, a liquid crystal
`
`display (LCD) screen 114, and a main body connector 116.” APPLE-1001, 5:7-10.
`
`“The wireless earbud 104 includes an earbud connector 118.” APPLE-1001, 5:27-
`
`28. “[T]he earbud connector 118 of the wireless earbud 104 is mateable with the
`
`main body connector 116 of the main body 102.” APPLE-1001, 5:28-30. “When
`
`the earbud connector 118 is connected to the main body connector 116, the
`
`wireless earbud 104 and the main body 102 for[m] a single integrated body.”
`
`APPLE-1001, 5:35-38.
`
`31.
`
`“The personal wireless media station 100 may charge the wireless
`
`earbud 104 while the wireless earbud 104 is plugged into the main body 102.”
`
`APPLE-1001, 8:45-47. “When the wireless earbud 104 is plugged into the main
`
`body 102 for charging, the wireless communication between the main body 102 of
`
`the personal wireless media station 100 and the wireless earbud 104 may be turned
`
`off.” APPLE-1001, 8:49-53. “When the wireless earbud 204 is not connected to
`
`the main body 202, the sound information transmitted from the user device 206 to
`
`the personal wireless media station 200 is played back through the wireless earbud
`
`204.” APPLE-1001, 6:3-6.
`
`32. Before the Critical Date of the ’198 Patent, the system, devices, and
`
`methods disclosed and claimed in the ’198 Patent were well-known in the prior art.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Further, to the extent there was any problem to be solved in the ’198 Patent, it had
`
`already been solved in the prior art systems before the Critical Date of the ’198
`
`Patent.
`
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution
`In reviewing the prosecution history of the ’198 Patent, I noticed that
`
`33.
`
`Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0272561; APPLE-1015), a
`
`reference asserted against claim 29 in this declaration, was also used by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution. APPLE-1002, 210. The manner in which Kim is
`
`applied here and during prosecution is substantively different though. For
`
`example, during prosecution, the Examiner relied upon Kim as a primary reference
`
`that disclosed the base station, earbud, and one of the wherein clauses. APPLE-
`
`1002, 210-212. The Examiner alleged that Kim’s main body 10 corresponds to the
`
`claimed base station and Kim’s earpiece 30 to the claimed earbud. Id. The
`
`Examiner then turned to US 20140073256 Al (Newham), US 20140279122 Al
`
`(Luna), and US 20150241922 Al (Farjami) to combine with Kim, and alleged that
`
`such a combination rendered the claim obvious. Id.
`
`34.
`
`In contrast, in the mappings I have described in my declaration (see ¶¶
`
`[221]-[232]), Kim is relied upon as a secondary reference that discloses the
`
`features of claim 29 (e.g., subsequent to unplugging, the wireless earbud generates
`
`sound using audio data from the smartphone without a user input to the wireless
`
`17
`
`
`
`earbud). Such a feature was not added to the dependent claims until after last
`
`Office Action was issued. APPLE-1002, 641, 662. Accordingly, it is not clear to
`
`me if this feature was even analyzed by the Examiner for prior art disclosure
`
`purposes. In my opinion, however, it is clear that the features of claim 29 are
`
`disclosed or rendered obvious for the reasons that I explain below with respect to
`
`claim 29. In my reading of Kim and consistent with the prosecution history, Kim’s
`
`main body 10 corresponds to the claimed base station. APPLE-1002, 210-212.
`
`
`
`V. THE PRIOR ART RENDERS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`OBVIOUS
`A. Hankey Group – An Incorporated Disclosure and an
`Obvious Combination
`35. Hankey incorporates “by reference in its entirety” U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 11/620,699, which issued as Rabu. APPLE-1004, 1:37-41, 48:18-
`
`30, 49:16-25, 50:39-50, 51:36-57; APPLE-1005, cover page. Hankey also
`
`incorporates “by reference in its entirety” U.S. Patent Application No. 11/651,094,
`
`which issued as Sanford. APPLE-1004, 1:28-31, 19:21-25; APPLE-1006, cover
`
`page. Accordingly, Hankey unequivocally incorporates and is unambiguous in its
`
`incorporation of the entire contents of Rabu and Sanford, making Rabu and
`
`Sanford part of Hankey’s disclosure. This is not surprising given that these
`
`18
`
`
`
`applications were filed in 2007, all assigned to Apple Inc., and all describe a
`
`wireless headset system.
`
`36. Rabu and Sanford also incorporate by reference one or both of U.S.
`
`Provisional applications 60/879,177, filed Jan. 6, 2007, and 60/879,195, filed Jan.
`
`6, 2007, both of which Hankey also claims priority from. APPLE-1004, 1:6-10;
`
`APPLE-1005, 3:27-34; APPLE-1006, 3:22-27. Hankey’s detailed description at
`
`16:57-52:27 and FIGS. 10-25, 26A-B, 27A, 28-67 are substantively the same as
`
`the detailed description of 60/879,177 at ¶¶ [0089]-[0257] and FIGS. 1-15, 16B-C,
`
`17, 18-57 and the detailed description of 60/879,195 at ¶¶ [0038]-[0085] and FIGS.
`
`1A-B, 45-57. Compare APPLE-1004, 16:57-52:27, FIGS. 10-25, 26A-B, 27A, 28-
`
`67 with APPLE-1020, ¶¶ [0001]-[0010], FIGS. 1-15, 16B-C, 17, 18-57 and
`
`APPLE-1021, ¶¶ [0038]-[0085], FIGS. 1A-B, 45-57. Accordingly, Rabu and
`
`Sanford incorporate those portions of Hankey that are substantively the same as the
`
`detailed descriptions of 60/879,177 and 60/879,195 by reference.
`
`37.
`
`In subsequent portions of this declaration, when I refer to disclosure in
`
`the combined teachings of Hankey, Rabu, and Sanford, I will use the phrase
`
`“Hankey Group” to refer to this set of references.
`
`1. Hankey (APPLE-1004)
`
`38. Hankey describes a Bluetooth headset that can wirelessly
`
`communicate with a nearby host device, such as a cellular phone. APPLE-1004,
`
`19
`
`
`
`8:54-9:13. An example of the headset is shown in FIG. 10A (reproduced below),
`
`which shows a headset 1000 that includes a primary housing 1010, an earbud 1020,
`
`a neck 1030, and a connector 1040. Id., 16:57-17:10. Connector 1040 “includes at
`
`least one port … for enabling a microphone inside housing 1010 to receive
`
`acoustic signals (e.g., a user's voice), and at least one contact 1042 for receiving
`
`power, data, or both from an external source.” Id., 17:19-25.
`
`headset
`
`earbud
`
`neck
`
`connector
`
`primary
`housing
`
`
`
`Hankey (APPLE-1004), FIG. 10A1
`
`
`
`39. The headset 1000 includes a connector 1040 that connects to a
`
`corresponding connector in a charging device, e.g., a dock or a cable, for charging
`
`
`
`1 Annotations to this and other figures in this declaration are shown in color.
`
`20
`
`
`
`the battery of the headset 1000 and for data communication with the charging
`
`device. APPLE-1004, 10:39-49, 11:30-33, 48:18-30, 50:39-56, 51:36-57. An
`
`exemplary embodiment of the charging device is shown as charging device 6600 in
`
`FIG. 66 (reproduced below).
`
`connector
`
`Charging Device
`circuitry
`
`connector
`
`cable
`
`
`
`Hankey (APPLE-1004), FIG. 66
`
`40. Charging device 6600 includes circuitry 6630, connectors 6601 and
`
`6610, and cable 6620. APPLE-1004, 51:36-57. Connectors 6601 may be used to
`
`connect the charging device 660 to a headset. Id.
`
`2.
`
`Rabu (APPLE-1005)
`
`41. Rabu provides more details about the charging device 6600 described
`
`in Hankey. Id. In fact, Rabu’s FIG. 6C (reproduced below) appears to be
`
`21
`
`
`
`physically identical to Hankey’s FIG. 66 (except for different labels used to
`
`describe the components of the charging device).
`
`connector
`
`circuitry
`
`port
`
`circuitry
`
`connector
`
`cable
`
`
`
`port
`
`port
`
`
`
`Hankey (APPLE-1004), FIG. 66 Rabu (APPLE-1005), FIG. 6C
`
`42. Rabu labels its charging device “cable 600,” which includes ports 202,
`
`204, and 206 and circuitry 604. APPLE-1005, 16:37-56. Cable 600 is used to
`
`“facilitate the transfer of power and information among the devices” connected to
`
`cable 600 through ports 202, 204, and 206. Id. “Ports 202, 204 and 206 can be
`
`any type of port (e.g., wireless or wired), including those that receive any type of
`
`physical connector that can be used to couple apparatus 200 to any type of device,
`
`apparatus, cable, and/or component of a device or other apparatus.” APPLE-1005,
`
`3:65-4:5. The ports 202, 204, and 206 can be connected to various types of
`
`devices including a wireless headset. Id., 4:39-58.
`
`43. Circuitry 604 “is located inside of cable 600 and may include
`
`components such as, for example, one or more microcontrollers, switches,
`
`regulators, and/or boost circuits,” including microcontroller 214. Id., 16:44-46.
`
`22
`
`
`
`Microcontroller 214 controls interactions and connections with connected devices,
`
`as described in the passage below.
`
`Rabu (APPLE-1005), 5:9-20
`
`
`
`44. Microcontroller 214 also facilitates communications between two
`
`devices, such as a headset and a cellular phone, in part by identifying and
`
`authenticating the devices and automatically pairing the devices according to the
`
`Bluetooth communication protocol. APPLE-1005, 9:63-10:20, 14:5-16:11.
`
`Another example implementation for facilitating transfer of power and information
`
`between devices is shown in Rabu’s FIG. 1 (reproduced below), which depicts a
`
`docking station 100 connected to a cellular phone 104 in one port and a wireless
`
`headset 106 in a second port. APPLE-1005, 3:4-45; FIG. 1. The docking station
`
`100 operates is a similar manner to the charging device “cable 600” described
`
`above. APPLE-1005, 3:45-53.
`
`23
`
`
`
`cellular
`telephone
`
`port
`
`wireless
`headset
`
`docking
`station
`
`port
`
`Rabu (APPLE-1005), FIG. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Incorporated Disclosure of Rabu into Hankey
`
`45. Rabu, which has a corresponding application number of 11/620,699,
`
`is incorporated by reference in its entirety into Hankey. APPLE-1004, 1:37-41,
`
`48:18-30, 49:16-25, 50:39-50, 51:36-57. Hankey specifically incorporates by
`
`reference Rabu’s discussion related to “a charger (see e.g., docking station 6400 of
`
`FIG. 64, device 6600 of FIG. 6, and docking station 6700 of FIG. 67B) which
`
`charges a battery in a headset or other apparatus that facilitates the charging of the
`
`headset” and “power supply circuitry … that can be used to transmit power to a
`
`headset.” APPLE-1004, 48:18-30, 49:16-25, 50:39-50, 51:36-57. These specific
`
`statements of incorporation found within Hankey would have guided a POSITA to
`
`incorporate and integrate at least those portions of Rabu describing a charger
`
`which charges a battery in a headset, or other apparatus that facilitates the charging
`
`of the headset, and power supply circuitry that is used to transmit power to a
`
`24
`
`
`
`headset. A POSITA would have interpreted Hankey to effectively incorporate
`
`those portions of Rabu as part of Hankey’s disclosure, which is not surprising
`
`given that both applications were filed in 2007, assigned to Apple Inc., and
`
`describe a wireless headset system.
`
`46. Further, these specific statements of incorporation would have been
`
`read in light of the additional general statement of incorporation to have not
`
`bounded the integration, but rather, a POSITA would have understood the
`
`disclosure to have promoted a broader integration, including, e.g., Rabu’s
`
`description of the charger including a microcontroller that performs operations to
`
`automatically pair the devices according to the Bluetooth communication protocol
`
`in response to a user interaction. APPLE-1005, 9:63-10:20, 14:5-16:11. A
`
`POSITA would have understood the incorporated teaching of Rabu into Hankey to
`
`disclose implementing a charger with a microcontroller that performs operations to
`
`automatically pair the devices according to the Bluetooth communication protocol
`
`in response to a user interaction and power supply circuitry that is used to transmit
`
`power to a headset.
`
`Obviousness Combination of Hankey and Rabu
`
`47. Combining the teachings of Hankey and Rabu is not only obvious but
`
`it is explicitly called for in Hankey. For example, Hankey explicitly states that
`
`“[a]n example of a charging device similar to device 6600 is discussed in detail
`
`25
`
`
`
`within U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/620,669,” which issued as Rabu.
`
`APPLE-1004, 1:37-41, 51:53-57; APPLE-1005, cover page. Thus, a POSITA
`
`would have combined the teachings of Hankey and Rabu, as directed by Hankey,
`
`at least to better understand the implementations and characteristics of Hankey’s
`
`charging device 6600.
`
`48. As I noted above, Hankey’s charging device 6600 is almost identical
`
`to Rabu’s cable 600 with some minor differences. For example, Hankey’s
`
`connectors 6601, 6610 are labeled as “ports” 206 and 204, respectively, in Rabu.
`
`Hankey’s circuitry 6630 is labeled as “circuitry” 604 in Rabu. These distinctions
`
`are merely labeling distinctions and do not reflect differences in functionality or
`
`operations between Hankey’s circuitry 6630 and Rabu’s cable 600. Similarly, I
`
`did not find any incompatibilities in the description of Hankey’s circuitry 6630 and
`
`Rabu’s cable 600 in Hankey and Rabu. Therefore, combining the features of
`
`Rabu’s cable 600 with the features of Hankey’s charging device 6600 would have
`
`been entirely predictable and would have been obvious to do so, as directed by
`
`Hankey itself.
`
`3.
`
`Sanford (APPLE-1006)
`
`49. Sanford discloses that a Bluetooth headset, similar to the headset
`
`described in Hankey, can “communicate with personal computers, portable
`
`26
`
`
`
`computers, cellular telephones, music players, [and] cellular telephones with
`
`music player functionality.” (Emphasis added). APPLE-1006, 3:15-27, 4:13-24.
`
`earbud
`
`button
`
`slot
`s
`
`headset
`
`axis
`
`direction
`
`opening
`
`actuation
`member
`
`end
`
`housing
`
`axis
`
`end
`Sanford (APPLE-1006), FIG. 1
`
`
`
`50. As shown in Sanford’s FIG. 1 above, the headset 10 includes, among
`
`other elements, housing 12, earbud 16, and button 30. APPLE-1006, 3:5-50.
`
`When the headset 10 is used to conduct a telephone call, a speaker in the earbud 16
`
`of the headset 10 “may be used to present audio from the telephone call.” Id.,
`
`4:25-30, FIG. 2. “When device 10 is used as a music player, [the] speaker [ ] may
`
`be used to play music for the user.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`Incorporated Disclosure of Sanford into Hankey
`
`51. Sanford, which has a corresponding application number of
`
`11/651,094, is also incorporated by reference in its entirety into Hankey. APPLE-
`
`1004, 1:28-31, 19:21-25. Hankey specifically incorporates by reference Sanford’s
`
`discuss
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
