Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: Oct. 13, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`KOSS CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, PATRICK R. SCANLON,and
`DAVID C. McKONE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Opinion for the Board by Administrative Patent Judges SCANLONand
`McKONE,per curiam.
`
`Opinion dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge EASTHOM.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 US.C. § 314
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: Oct. 13, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`KOSS CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, PATRICK R. SCANLON,and
`DAVID C. McKONE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Opinion for the Board by Administrative Patent Judges SCANLONand
`McKONE,per curiam.
`
`Opinion dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge EASTHOM.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 US.C. § 314
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple,Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-6, 8, 10-20, 22-29, 31-36, 38-42, 44, and 58~62 ( of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,469,934 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’934 patent”). Paper 2
`
`(“Pet.’””). Koss Corp. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`
`Paper8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`Wehavejurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Upon considering the
`
`preliminary record, for reasons discussed below, we declineto institute
`
`inter partes review.
`
`Il.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`
`Petitioner states that it is the real party-in-interest. Pet. 76. Patent
`
`Ownerstates that it is the real party in interest. Paper 4 (“Mandatory Notice
`
`by Patent Owner”), 1; see also Paper 6 (update).
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Both parties list the related lawsuit alleging infringementof the ’934
`
`patent, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00665 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`(“District Court” or “District Court Lawsuit”). Pet. 76; Paper 4, 1. Patent
`
`Ownerlists other lawsuits involving the ’934 patent, United States
`
`applications to which the °934 patent claimspriority, and pending inter
`
`partes reviewsas related matters. Paper 4 (updated in Papers 6 and 7), 1—2.
`
`1. Other Lawsuits
`
`Patent Owneridentifies several other lawsuits involving the ’934
`
`patent: Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00664 (W.D. Tex);
`
`Koss Corp. v Plantronics, Inc., No. 6-20-cv-00663 (W.D. Tex.); Koss Corp.
`
`v. Bose Corp., No. 6-20-cv-00661 (W.D. Tex); Bose Corp. v. Koss Corp.,
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`No. 1-20-cv-12193 (D. Mass.); and Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., No. 4:20-cv-
`
`05504 (N.D.Cal.). Paper 4,1.
`
`2. United States Applications
`
`Patent Ownerlists the following applications as related applications
`
`to which the ’934 patent claims priority: PCT application No.
`
`PCT/US2009/039754, filed April 7, 2009 (the “PCT Application”), and
`
`provisional application Serial No. 61/123,265, filed April 8, 2008 (the
`
`“Provisional Application”). Paper4, 2.
`
`3. Inter Partes Review Proceedings
`
`Patent Ownerlists the following inter partes review proceedings
`
`challenging patents that claim priority to the PCT Application and the
`Provisional Application:!
`
`Bose Corp. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00297, filed December7, 2020,
`
`challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155 B2; Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp.,
`
`IPR2021-00305, filed December 15, 2020, challenging U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,506,325 B1; Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., 1PR2021-00381, filed January 4,
`
`2021, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,491,982 B1; Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp.,
`
`IPR2021-00546, filed February 22, 2021, challenging U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,206,025 B1; Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00612,filed March3,
`
`2021, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,206,025; Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp.,
`
`IPR2021-00626, filed March 17, 2021, challenging U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,206,025 B1; Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., JPR2021-00679,filed March 22,
`
`2021, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,506,325 B1; and Apple Inc. v. Koss
`
`' Additional inter partes review proceedings involving these same parties
`include Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00255, filed November 25,
`2020, and Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., 1PR2021-00600, filed March 7, 2021,
`both challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,298,451 B1.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`Corp., IPR2021-00686, filed March 22, 2021, challenging U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,491,982 B1. Paper4, 2.
`
`Two inter partes review proceedings involve claimsof the ’934
`
`patent, including claims challenged and not challenged here: Bose Corp.v.
`
`Koss Corp., IPR2021-00680, filed March 17, 2021; and Apple Inc. v. Koss
`
`Corp., IPR2021-00592, Paper 2 (March 2, 2021) (the “592 petition’),
`
`Paper 9 (Aug. 23, 2021) (Institution Decision) (the “’592 Inst. Dec.”)
`
`(generally, the “’592 IPR’’).
`
`C. The ’934 Patent
`
`The ’934 patent’s priority dates are April 7, 2009, based on the PCT
`
`Application, and April 7, 2008, based on the Provisional Application.
`
`Ex. 1001, codes (60), (63).
`
`1. Background Technology
`
`The ’934 patent characterizes prior art wired headphonesthat
`
`interconnect a headphonewith a data storage unit as “cumbersome.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:42-51. The ’934 patent also characterizes prior art wireless
`
`headphones connected via IEEE 802.11 (e.g., a Wi-Fi connection) to a
`
`WLAN-ready laptop or personal computer as “quite large and notin-ear
`
`type phones.” Jd. at 1:58-62.
`
`2. The ’934 Patent’s Wireless Earphones
`
`The ’934 patent describes a wireless earphonethat receives streaming
`
`audio data from a data source such as an audio player or computer via an ad
`
`hoc wireless network and infrastructure wireless networks, and that
`
`transitions seamlessly between wireless networks. Ex. 1001, 1:66—2:3. The
`
`°934 patent describes an “ad hoc wireless network”as “a network where
`
`two ... wireless-capable devices, such as the earphoneanda data source,
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`communicate directly and wirelessly, without using an access point.” Id. at
`
`3:3-6.” An ad hoc networkis in contrast to an “infrastructure wireless
`
`network,” which is “a wireless network that uses one or more access points
`
`to allow a wireless capable device, such as the wireless earphone,to
`
`connect to a computer network, such as a LAN [local area network] or
`
`WAN [wide area network] (including the Internet).” Jd. at 3:6—-11.
`
`The earphone has a body andanear canalportion for insertion into
`
`the ear canal of the user of the earphone. Ex. 1001, 3:17—20, 3:54—-56.
`
`Some embodiments employ “twodiscrete wireless earphones,” one in each
`
`ear. Id. at 3:47—-49. Figure 2A of the 934 patent follows:
`
`
`AD HOC WIRELESS
`NETWORK
`
`
`DATASOURCE
`
`
`FIG. 2A
`
`Figure 2A illustrates earphone 10 communicating over ad hoc wireless
`
`network 24 with data source 20. Jd. at 4:26-32. The earphone’s transceiver
`
`* The art sometimesrefers to ad hoc networksas piconets, of which a
`Bluetooth network is an example. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 {{ 27, 29, 41;
`Ex. 1007 { 6; Pet. 24 (“piconet connection(i.e., an ad hoc network, such as
`Bluetooth)”). For purposes of this Decision, we use “ad hoc network,”
`“Bluetooth,” and “piconet” interchangeably, as any differences in these
`terms do not affect the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`circuit communicates wirelessly with the data source. Jd. at 4:28-32. One
`
`example of a data sourceis a digital audio player (DAP). Jd. at 4:32-33.
`
`The DAP transmits audio wirelessly to earphone(s) via the ad hoc network
`
`if the DAP and earphone(s) are “in range” of that network. Jd. at 4:56—57.
`
`“Whenin range, the data source 20 may communicate with the earphone 10
`
`via the ad hoc wireless network 24 using any suitable wireless
`
`communication protocol,” including Bluetooth and other communication
`
`protocols. Jd. at 4:56-61.
`
`The earphone’s user may access an associated web page through a
`
`server. Ex. 1001, 8:7—-9, Fig. 2D. “[A]t the website, the user could set
`
`various content features andfilters, as well as adjust various sound control
`
`features, such astreble, bass, frequency settings, noise cancellation settings,
`
`etc.,” all of which are set by the user. Jd. at 8:15—21. “In addition, the user
`
`could set preferred streaming audio stations, such as preferred Internet radio
`
`stations or other streaming audio broadcasts.” Jd. at 8:18—21. Thus,
`
`“instead of listening to streaming audio from the data source 20, the user
`
`could listen to Internet radio stations or other streaming audio broadcasts
`
`received by the earphone 10.” Jd. at 8:21-24.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Independent claim 58 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
`
`58. A headphone assembly comprising:
`first and second earphones, wherein each ofthe first and
`second earphones comprises an acoustic transducer; and
`an antenna for receiving wireless signals from a mobile,
`digital audio player via one or more ad hoc wireless
`communication link, wherein the mobile, digital audio playeris
`a first digital audio source;
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`a wireless communication circuit connected to the
`antenna, wherein the wireless communication circuit
`is for
`receiving and transmitting wireless signals to and from the
`headphone assembly;
`
`a processor,
`a rechargeable battery for powering the headphone
`assembly; and
`a microphonefor picking up utterances by a user of the
`headphone assembly; and
`wherein the headphone assemblyis configuredto play, by
`the first and second earphones,digital audio content transmitted
`by the mobile, digital audio player via the one or more ad hoc
`wireless communication links;
`
`wherein the processoris configured to, upon activation of
`a user-control of the headphone assembly, initiate transmission
`of a request to a remote, network-connected server that is in
`wireless communication with the mobile, digital audio player;
`and
`
`wherein the headphone assembly transitions to play
`digital audio content received wirelessly from a seconddigital
`audio source via a second wireless communication link based
`on, at
`least, a signal strength level for the second wireless
`communication link, wherein the second digital audio sourceis
`different from the first digital audio source.
`
`E. Evidence ofRecord
`
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art references and expert
`
`testimony:
`
`
`Haupt, PCT/EP 2005/011228, issued Apr. 27, 2006 (Ex. 1004)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Seshadri, US 2006/0166716 Al, published July 27, 2006 (Ex. 1007)
`
`Rosener, US 2008/0076489 A1, published Mar. 27, 2008 (Ex. 1008)
`
`Rao, US 7,881,745 B1, issued Feb. 1, 2011 (Ex. 1009)
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`Paulson, US 7,551,940 B2, issued June 23, 2009 (Ex. 1011)
`
`.| Seshadri-818, US 2005/0037818 A1, published Feb. 17, 2005 (Ex. 1013)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock (Ex. 1003)
`
`F.
`
`Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1-6, 8, 10-20, 22—29, 31-36, 38-42, 44,
`
`and 58-62 would have been unpatentable on the following grounds(Pet. 1—
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C.”
`
`e
`
`'e 3
`
`
`
`§
`
`2):
`
`
`
`onand
`58, 59
`60, 61
`1, 2, 8, 32, 62
`
`
`
`10, 13-15, 18,
`
`22-24, 27, 31,
`
`
`33-36, 38, 41, 42,
`
`
`44
`11, 12, 16, 17, 19,
`20, 25, 26, 28, 29,
`39. 40
`
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Haupt, Seshadri*
`Haupt, Seshadri, Paulson.
`Haupt, Seshadri, Rao .
`Haupt, Seshadri, Rao, Paulson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`Haupt, Seshadri, Rao, Rosener
`
`103
`
`103
`
`
`
`.
`Haupt, Seshadri, Rao, Rosener,
`Paulson
`
`
`
`
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287-88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, effective
`March 16, 2013. Because the application that resulted in the °934 patent
`has an effective filing date before this date, the pre-AIA version of § 103
`applies.
`4 The Petition also relies on Seshadri-818 (Ex. 1013), which Seshadri
`incorporates by reference. See Pet. 28—29 (citing Ex. 1007] 1
`(incorporating by reference App. No. 10/856,430—1.e., Seshadri-818);
`Ex. 1013).
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`G.
`
`Serial Petitions
`
`Petitioner filed two petitions challenging claims in the ’934 patent.
`
`Thefirst petition, the ’592 petition, challenges the claims as follows (?592
`
`Inst. Dec. 9):
`
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Challengea|2> U-S-C-8 Reference(s)/Basis
`
`1, 2, 9, 32, 47, 52,
`7
`53, 54, 56, 57
`Haupt, Seshadri, Rao
`
`
`Haupt, Seshadri, Rao, Paulson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10, 14, 15, 23, 24,
`33-36, 42, 43, 46,
`48-51, 55
`11, 16, 19, 21, 25,
`28, 30, 37, 39, 45
`
`
`
`103
`
`Haupt, Seshadri, Rao, Rosener
`
`
`
`Haupt, Seshadri, Rao, Rosener,
`Paulson
`
`Asthe chart above shows,the 592 petition challenges claims 1-3, 5,
`
`7, 9-11, 14-16, 19, 21, 23-25, 28, 30, 32-37, 39, 42-43, 45-48, and 51-57.
`
`The Petition here challenges claims 1-6, 8, 10-20, 22—29, 31-36, 38-42,
`
`44, and 58-62 based on the samepriorart, with one addedprior art
`
`reference in the Petition. See Pet. 28-33 (employing Seshadri-818
`
`(Ex. 1013)).
`
`Petitioner explains that the additional claims challengedhererelative
`
`to the 592 petition “recite that ‘the headphone assemblytransitions to play
`digital audio content received wirelessly from a second digital audio source
`... based on,atleast, a signal strength level .
`. .’ (i-e., the ‘signal strength
`
`claims’).” Paper 3 (“Notice”), 2. Petitioner explains that the instant
`
`Petition “relies upon the disclosure of Seshadri-818, in addition to the prior
`
`art relied upon in IPR2021-00592, with the intent of demonstrating the
`
`unpatentability of the signal strength claims(i.e., claims 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 17,
`
`18, 20, 22, 26, 27, 29, 31, 38, 40, 41, 44, and 58-62).” Jd. at 2-3.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`Claim 58, reproduced above and addressedbelow,is representative
`
`of the “signal strength” claims. As explained below,Petitioner fails to
`
`demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the “signal strength” claimsat the
`
`heart of this Petition. See infra § III.D.4. Accordingly, we exercise our
`
`discretion and decline to institute on the remaining claimsfor efficiency
`
`reasons, because the Boardinstituted on the 592 petition, and the °592
`
`petition challenges the same non-signal strength claims based on materially
`
`the samerationale andprior art as here. Instituting anothertrial of the same
`
`claims on nearly identical grounds will “place a substantial and unnecessary
`
`
`
`
`
`.burden on the Board and . . [P]atent [O]wnerand.. . raise fairness, timing,
`
`and efficiency concerns.” See The Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), available at tpgnov.pdf
`
`(uspto.gov) (the “TPG”), 59 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(b)).
`
`Il. OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS
`
`A. Legal Standardfor Obviousness
`
`A patentclaim is invalid as obviousif the differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter andthe priorart are “such that the subject matter as
`
`a whole would have been obviousat the time the invention was made to a
`
`person havingordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`
`pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2018).
`
`The ultimate determination of obviousnessis a question of law,
`but
`that determination is based on underlying factual
`findings.... The underlying factual findings include (1) “the
`scope and contentof the prior art,”(2) “differences between the
`prior art and the claimsat issue,”(3) “the level of ordinary skill
`in the pertinent art,’ and (4)
`the presence of secondary
`considerations of nonobviousnesssuch “as commercial success,
`long felt but unsolved needs,failure of others,” and unexpected
`results.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing inter alia
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)).
`|
`
`“Tosatisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot
`
`employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must insteadarticulate
`specific reasoning, based on evidence ofrecord, to support the legal
`
`conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d
`
`1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore,in assessing thepriorart, the
`
`Board must consider whether a person of ordinary skill would have been
`
`motivated to combinethe prior art to achieve the claimed invention.
`
`NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1381.
`
`Asthe Federal Circuit reasons,
`
`instances rely upon
`“because inventions in most, if not all,
`building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries
`almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense,
`is already known,” “it can be important to identify a reason that
`would have prompted a person ofordinary skill in the relevant
`field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new
`invention does.”
`
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 991-92 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017) (quoting KSR Int’! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19
`
`(2007)).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner cites to Dr. Cooperstock’s testimony, which follows:
`
`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 °934 patent’s Critical Date .
`.
`. would have had
`at least a Bachelor’s Degree in an academic area emphasizing
`electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline,
`andat least two years of experience in wireless communications
`across short distance or local area networks. Superior education
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-
`versa.
`
`Ex. 1003 ¥ 33; see also Pet. 4 n.1 (citing Ex. 1003 {33-34 (defining a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art)). Patent Owner does not comment on
`
`this statement nor doesit propose a different level of skill. For purposes of
`
`this Institution Decision, we adoptthe level of skill set forth above as
`
`supported bythe prior art references of record and the ’934 patent
`
`Specification.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In inter partes reviews, the Board interprets claim language using the
`
`district court standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under
`
`that standard, claim terms havetheir ordinary and customary meaning,as
`
`would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention,in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and
`
`the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-14. Anyextrinsic
`
`evidence should be considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. See
`
`id. at 1317-19.
`
`Neither party construes a claim term. See Pet. 4; see generally,
`
`Prelim. Resp. No need exists to construe any claim term to resolve a
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`controversy here.° See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`
`Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we
`
`need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent
`999
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy’”
`
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`D. Obviousness ofSignal Strength Claim 58,
`over Haupt, Seshadri, and Seshardi-818
`
`Petitioner alleges that claim 58, which represents the “signal
`
`strength” subject matter includedin claims4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 22,
`
`26, 27, 29, 31, 38, 40, 41, 44, and 58-62, would have been obvious over
`
`Haupt, Seshadri, and Seshardi-818. Pet. 1,442. Petitioner also relies on
`
`the Cooperstock Declaration. See Ex. 1003.
`
`1. Haupt (Ex. 1004)
`
`Haupt describes “WLAN headphones”that receive audio data
`
`wirelessly transmitted from a server through an access point. Ex. 1004,
`
`2:22-3:7. When the headphoneis within transmission range of a WLAN
`
`> The Dissent arguesthat the signal strength limitations might not be
`limitationsat all, and, instead are statements of intended use. Neither party
`proposesor argues such a position. Nor doeseither party appear to have
`raised this issue before the District Court. See Ex. 2002 (joint claim
`construction statement); Ex. 2003 (claim construction order). If Petitioner
`wanted to construe the signal strength limitations in this manner, Petitioner
`should have proposed and supported such a construction in the Petition.
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Below, we evaluate the arguments and
`evidencePetitioner does present and decline the Dissent’s invitation to
`reformulate the Petition (which would result in a lower required showing
`for Petitioner). Cf SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018)
`(“Muchas in the civil litigation system it mimics, in an inter partes review
`the petitioner is master of its complaint and normally entitled to judgment
`on all of the claimsit raises, not just those the decision maker might wish to
`address.”).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`access point, the access point connects to the headphone, which permits the
`
`headphoneto wirelessly receive data from the server. Jd. at 2:22~24.
`Hauptalso discloses an audio forwarding mode in which a
`
`headphone “perform[s] as a local server, providing [] stored audio files to
`
`other playback devices.” Jd. at 10:7-24. The headphone “can therefore
`
`receive data wirelessly from an access point, and then sendthis data to
`
`another playback device.” Id.
`
`Figure 1 of Haupt follows:
`
`
`
`Fig.1
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a data transfer system.
`
`Ex. 1004, 5:23-24, 6:16-17. As shownin Figure 1, private sector server PS
`
`is connected to public sector server OS over the Internet. Jd. at 6:17—-18.
`
`Access point APP is hardwired to the private server PS. Jd. at 6:18-19.
`
`APP has a WLAN interface and, so long as playback device WGis within
`
`transmission range of the private access point APP, the two wirelessly
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`communicate with each other. Jd. at 6:18-23. Playback device WG
`
`includes headphones with a WLAN interface. Jd. at 7:31-8:1.
`
`Control buttons on the headphonesprovide navigation of the audio
`
`files. Ex. 1004, 14:16-18. “The control buttons can likewise have
`
`numerousfunctions, such that it is possible to navigate both within a music
`
`piece and within the files or databases on the server.” Jd. at 14:22—23.
`
`2. Seshadri (Ex. 1007)
`
`Seshadri describes a modular wireless headset, including a wireless
`
`earpiece, wirelessly coupled to a base unit. Ex. 1007 { 24. The base unit
`
`“may be a cellular telephone, wire line telephone, laptop computer, personal
`
`computer, personal digital assistant, etc., using antennas 7 and transceiver
`
`(transmitter and/or receiver) 13 of FIG. 2 via a first communication
`
`pathway 18.” Jd. The base unit may couple the headset to multiple
`
`playback devices, audio streams or voice communication networks such as
`
`radio, cellular, wireless voice. Jd. “[A]fter exchanging and completing
`
`registration information,” using, for example, the Bluetooth specification,
`
`wireless communication may be established between the headset and base
`
`unit. Id. Ff 26, 36, 40.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`Figure 3 of Seshadri follows:
`
`” ete.
`
`PSTN, PBX
`
`Figure 3 depicts the earpiece of the modular headset paired with the
`base unit to automatically connect to resources over a transceiver.
`
`Ex. 1007 4 35. The resources may bea cellular telephone network, wire
`
`line telephone, Ethernet telephone, laptop computer, personal computer, or
`
`personaldigital assistant. /d. Still referring to Figure 3, “wireless headset
`
`10 maybe wirelessly coupled with any one ofthe devices 30—37 andactas
`
`the headset communicatively coupled and registered to the devices 30-37.”
`
`Id. § 40.
`
`Seshadri’s devices 30-37 each have piconet RF interface 38 and
`
`WLAN RF interface 39. Id. {f 40-41. Wireless headset 10 mayestablish a
`
`piconet with any one of devices 30—37 or access point 21 (which includes
`
`both piconet RF interface 38 and WLAN RF interface 39). Id. 43. In one
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`example, if headset 10 is unable to establish a piconet connection with
`
`cellular telephone 36 via piconet RF interface 38, headset 10 establishes a
`
`wireless communication link with cellular telephone 36 via WLAN RF
`
`interfaces 39 and access point 21. Jd. J 42, Fig. 3. In another example,
`
`wireless headset 10 can function as the headset for wire line telephone 37,
`
`and can be connected via a piconet. Jd. § 43. If headset 10 strays too far
`
`from wire line telephone 37, but is close enoughtocellular telephone 36,
`then headset 10 may connectto cellular telephone 36 (via a piconet) and
`cellular telephone 36 can connectto wire line telephone 37 via the WLAN
`and access point 21. Id. | 44. “Thus, a logical connectionis established
`between headset 10 and wire line telephone 37 via cellular telephone 36 and
`
`access point 21.” Id. “Accordingly, within a wireless geographic area, the
`range of headset 10 may be extendedutilizing the WLAN within the
`geographic area. As such, headset 10 extends the mobility ofits user,
`extends the range of headset use and expands on headset functionality while
`preserving privacy and security by seeking service from base units to which
`
`it may be registered.” Id.
`
`3. Seshardi-818 (Ex. 1013)
`
`Seshadri-818 describes “a method for supporting a universal wireless
`
`headset for ongoing communications[] by monitoring signal strength of
`
`communications within a piconet that includes the headset and a device
`
`coupled to the network.” Ex. 1013 § 11. In Seshadri-818, a universal
`
`headset establishes a piconet with a host device, which can be a cellular
`
`telephone, wire line telephone, personal or laptop computer, PDA,or access
`point toa WLAN.Jd. 4 10. Ifthe signal strength of the piconet connection
`drops below a threshold, another deviceis identified to which the headset
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`can connect. Jd. J 11. “In addition, a logical connection may be established
`
`between the new device and a host device supporting the communication.
`
`Accordingly, a universal wireless headset is provided that extends the
`
`mobility of the user, extends the range of the headset and expandsonits
`
`functionality.” Id.
`
`Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`eeeetreeeon
`‘evenemmideerent,eoueeyweeniecreme.uitdenSrUESTDSOTTTOTDSTUIEDTHTTTTDGrHEete)eeeEEE.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic block diagram of a wireless geographic area
`coupled to a WLAN.
`
`Id. J 12. In this example, a communication is to be processed via wire line
`
`telephone 14, which is the host device; however, headset 12 is too far away
`
`for a piconet to be established with telephone 14. Jd.
`
`26. Instead, headset
`
`12 establishes a piconet with cellular telephone 22, which,in turn,
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`establishes a connection with access point 24. Id. Access point 24
`
`establishes a communication link with telephone 14. Jd. “Thus,a logical
`
`connection is established between the universal wireless headset 12 and the
`
`wire line telephone 14 via cellular telephone 22 and access point 24.” Jd.
`
`Figure 8 is reproduced below:
`
`Monitor Signal Strength Of
`Communications Within Piconet
`
`Comparison?
`
`Identify Another Device Coupled
`To The Network
`
`180
`
`184
`
`186
`
`
`
`
`
`182
` Unfavorable
`
`
`
`Establish Piconet With Identified
`Device Coupled To The Network
`
`FIG. 8
`
`Figure 8 is a logic diagram of a method for supporting a universal
`wireless headset.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`Id. 419. At step 180,° signal strength of the communications over the
`piconet(including the headset and device) is monitored. Id. 49. At step
`
`182, it is determined whetherthe signal strength “compares unfavorably to
`
`a signalstrength threshold(e.g., is below a threshold of -80 to —85 dB).”
`Id. At step 184, another device coupled to the networkis identified.
`Id. 450. At step 186, a new piconetis established between the universal
`
`wireless headset and the new device. Jd. “This enables the universal
`
`wireless headset to roam within the local area network and maintainits
`
`wireless headset functionality with one of its host devices as it roams.” Id.
`
`4. Claim 58
`
`Regarding claim 58, Petitioner cites Haupt for aspects relating to
`
`wireless headphones and Seshadri for aspects relating to digital audio
`
`sources, as well as for headphones with a rechargeable battery. Pet. 11-33.
`
`Accordingto Petitioner, a skilled artisan “would have found it obvious to
`
`modify Haupt based on Seshadri such that Haupt’s WLAN headphones
`
`include the capability to not only communicate with servers via WLAN (as
`taught by Haupt), but to also communicate with local audio sources via both
`WLAN andad hoc networks(as taught be Seshadri).” Jd. at 8-9.
`
`In particular, Petitioner cites to Haupt’s wireless headphoneunit as
`showing “[a] headphone assembly”and“first and second earphones,
`
`wherein eachof the first and second earphones comprises an acoustic
`
`transducer,”as recited in claim 58. Jd. at 11-14 (limitations 58[pre] and
`
`6 Figure 8 depicts steps 180, 182, 184, and 186. The specification of
`Seshadri-818 describes steps 120, 122, 124, and 126. Ex. 1013 {| 49-50.
`Weinterpret the discrepancy as a typographical error. For purposes ofthis
`Decision, we use the numbering depicted in Figure 8.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`58[a]’). Petitioner further cites Haupt for “an antenna for receiving wireless
`
`signals.” Id. at 14-15 (limitation 58[b]). Petitioner also cites Haupt for “a
`
`wireless communication circuit connected to the antenna, wherein the
`
`wireless communication circuit is for receiving and transmitting wireless
`
`signals to and from the headphone assembly” and “a processor.” Jd. at 18—
`
`21 (limitations 58[c] and 58[d]). Petitioner further cites Hauptfor “a
`
`microphonefor picking up utterances by a user of the headphone
`
`assembly.” Jd. at 22—23 (limitation 58[f]).
`
`Petitioner cites, inter alia, Seshadri for “a rechargeable battery for
`
`powering the headphone assembly,”as recited in claim 58. Jd. at 21-22
`
`(limitation 58[e]).
`
`Petitioner cites Seshadri for receiving signals from “a mobile digital
`
`audio player via one or more ad hoc wireless communication links, wherein
`
`the mobile, digital audio playeris a first digital audio source,” as recited in
`
`claim 58. Jd. at 15—16 (limitation 58[b]). In particular, Petitioner contends
`
`that Seshadri’s cellphone 36 isa first digital audio source and that
`
`Seshadri’s PDA 30 is “a second digital audio source thatis different from
`
`the first digital audio source,” as recited in claim 58. Jd. (citing Ex. 1007,
`
`Fig. 3; Ex. 1003 §] 75-76).
`
`As to “wherein the headphone assembly is configured to play, by the
`
`first and second earphones,digital audio content transmitted by the mobile,
`
`digital audio player via the one or more ad hoc wireless communication
`
`links,” as recited in claim 58, Petitioner arguesthat “in the combination of
`
`Haupt and Seshadri, Haupt’s WLAN headphones would be configured to
`
`’ The Petition enumerates claim 58’s limitations as 58[pre] and 58[a]—58[1].
`Pet. 11-33.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`couple with the mobile, digital audio players taught by Seshadri (e.g., PDA
`
`30 or cellphone 36) via a piconet connection(i.e., an ad hoc network, such
`
`as Bluetooth).” Jd. at 23-24(limitation 58[g]) (citing Ex. 1007 {J 40-42;
`
`Ex. 1003 4 90). According to Petitioner, “the mobile, digital audio player
`
`(e.g., PDA 30 or cellphone 36)is for transmitting digital audio content to
`
`the headphone assembly(i.e., the modified WLAN headphones of Haupt)
`
`via one or more ad hoc wireless communication links(i.e., the piconet
`
`connection), such that the content is playable by the first and second
`
`earphones.” Id. at 24.
`
`Asto “wherein the processoris configured to, upon activation of a
`
`user-control of the headphone assembly,initiate transmission of a request to
`
`a remote, network-connected server that is in wireless communication with
`
`the mobile, digital audio player,” as recited in claim 58, Petitioner argues
`
`that Haupt’s data transfer system, including private server PS and public
`
`server OS, is a “remote, network connected serverthat is in wireless
`
`communication with the mobile, digital audio player.” Jd. at 24-26
`
`(limitation 58[h]) (citing Ex. 1004, 6:16—7:5, 7:30-31, 15:28-31, 19:10-21,
`
`Fig. 1). Petitioner argues that each of Seshadri’s devices (e.g., PDA 30 and
`
`cellphone 36) “would be able to communicate with and receive audiofiles
`
`from a server(e.g., public server OS) in the same manneras the operating
`
`element BE taught by Haupt with respect to FIG. 3.” Jd. at 26 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004, 9:2-8, 10:7-24; Ex. 1003 7 94). In Petitioner’s combination,this
`
`server (e.g., public server OS) “would have provided a source for the audio
`
`streams to which Seshadri teaches the base units 16 have access.” Id.at
`
`26-27 (citing Ex. 1007 4 24; Ex. 1003
`
`94).
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00693
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`Petitioner contends that Seshadri teaches the signal strength
`
`limitation of claim 58,i.e.,
`
`wherein the headphone assemblytransitionsto 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 level for the second wireless
`communication link, wherein the second digital audio sourceis
`different from the first digital audio source.
`Pet. 28—33 (claim limitation 58[i]). Petitioner’s contention, however,is
`
`based on a mischaracterization of Seshadri.
`
`In particular, Petitioner argues that “Seshadri focuses on providing
`
`access to multiple audio sources andtransitioning between them.” Jd.
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
