Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 42
`Entered: May 19, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: April 5, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. MCKONE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 42
`Entered: May 19, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: April 5, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. MCKONE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DAVID HOLT, ESQ.
`KARL RENNER, ESQ.
`BRIAN BOZZO, ESQ.
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`1000 Maine Ave., SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MARK G. KNEDEISEN, ESQ.
`LAURÉN SHUTTLEWORTH MURRAY, ESQ.
`BRIAN P. BOZZO, ESQ.
`RAGAE GHABRIAL, ESQ.
`K&L GATES
`K&L Gates Center
`210 Sixth Avenue
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, April 5,
`
`2022, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, held by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` (Proceedings begin at 1:00 p.m.)
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Good morning, or afternoon, as the
`case may be.
` This is the final hearing on IPR2021-00381.
` Petitioner is Apple, Inc., and Koss Corporation is the owner
` of U.S. Patent No. 10,491,982.
` Just a quick technical check. Counsel for
` petitioner, can you hear me?
` MR. RENNER: Yes, Your Honor. This is Karl Renner.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Just --
` MR. RENNER: And David, can you hear him on the
`video?
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay.
` MR. HOLT: Yes.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Well, I've had a little bit
`of a technical issue here so I want to make sure everybody
`can hear me.
` Mr. Knedeisen, can you hear me as well?
` MR. KNEDEISEN: Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear
`me?
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Yes, I do. Okay.
` With the technical issues resolved, let's proceed.
` Administratively, I am Judge Anderson. We are
`joined in this hearing with PTAB Judges McKone and Beamer.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` We're all participating via teleconference so there
`are some things to keep in mind.
` Primarily is the need to identify the slides you're
`using. I believe everybody's numbered them, so give us a
`number, we all have a copy of your respective slide sets,
`and we are able to follow along.
` We also have copies of, I think, all -- for certain,
`the most principal of the pleadings that have been filed.
` Per our order, each party is going to have -- so you
`can refer to the pleadings. That's what I'm saying to you.
` Each party is going to have 60 minutes total to
`present their argument. Petitioner has the burden to show
`unpatentability and will go first, patent owner will follow,
`and petitioner may reserve time to rebut patent owner, and
`similarly, once the petitioner is through with its rebuttal,
`if reserved, then patent owner may have whatever time is
`asked for sur-rebuttal.
` We don't have a timer, and that, for me, is a little
`bit of an issue because I'm not a good multi-tasker, but I
`will go ahead and make an effort. And I've asked Judges
` McKone and Beamer to also assist me in keeping track of the
` time, so we will have, hopefully, enough fire power to
` actually tell you where you are in your reservation of time.
` We didn't get any objections to the demonstratives,
` for which I greatly appreciate your efforts in that if you
` made any, so at this time let's get introductions formally
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` for the record, first starting with petitioner.
` MR. HOLT: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
` David Holt here on behalf of petitioner, Apple. I'm
` also joined by lead counsel Karl Renner by audio.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. We have had the pleasure
`before, so that's great.
` Patent owner, Mr. Knedeisen. Go ahead and introduce
` yourself and whoever else is there for patent owner.
` MR. KNEDEISEN: Yes. This is Mark Knedeisen of K&L
`Gates for patent owner. With me in the room, not on the
`Webex, are Ragae Ghabrial, Laurén Shuttleworth Murray, and
`Brian Bozzo, all of K&L Gates, and all counsel of record, I
`believe.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Very good.
` Petitioner, as I just said, you're going to start,
` so do you want to reserve any time for rebuttal?
` MR. HOLT: Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to reserve 20
`minutes, please.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: 20 minutes. Okay. Give me a
`moment to set that.
` Okay. I am doing a start, and so you have your
` hour, you're going to use 40 minutes right now, and then
` you'll have 20 minutes left.
` And we are beginning now. Please proceed.
` MR. HOLT: May it please the Board, my name is David
`Holt, and I'll be presenting on behalf of Petitioner Apple
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`with respect to the '982 patent today.
` The '982 patent is the second of a series of patents
` related to wireless headphones for which Your Honors have
` and will be hearing arguments.
` There are two other proceedings that relate to the
` same specification and involve some of these same prior art
` references. Those are IPR2021-00305 related to the '325
` patent, and IPR2021-00592 related to the '934 patent.
` As you recall, we had the hearing for the '325
` patent on March 3rd, and a number of the issues we discussed
` during that hearing will be discussed again here today.
` With that in mind, on Slide 2, we see a listing of
`the arguments raised by Koss in its patent owner response
`and sur-reply. These are discrete issues and we'll be
`addressing each in turn.
` The first issue relates to a POSITA's expectation of
`success in combining Rosener, Hankey, and Dyer.
` Under this broader category, there are a number of
`individual arguments about how a POSITA would have
`interpreted the art and whether a POSITA would have been
`capable of making the proposed combination, and we'll step
`through each of those.
` The second issue relates to Depend Claims 4 and 5
`and the combination with the Haupt reference. The question
`here, which was raised belatedly in the sur-reply, is whether
`the transmission initiated by the headphones arrives at the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`remote server.
` The third issue is whether the claimed firmware
`updates would have been obvious in light of the teachings of
`Price.
` The fourth issue relates to microphone activation
`and whether it would have been obvious to integrate a mute
`button like the one taught in Paulson.
` The fifth issue is whether Rosener's signal
`conditioning circuit 916 is a digital signal processor,
`which should sound familiar from the '325 hearing.
` And finally, Koss argues that the commercial success
`of Apple's own products implicate the obviousness of Koss'
`claims, which it does not.
` If you'll turn to Slide 3, you'll see the grounds
`that were raised in this petition against the challenged
`claims of the '982 patent.
` Notably, the arguments about which we'll be talking
`today directly implicate Grounds 1A through 1D. There are
`no separate arguments about the prima facie cases of
`obviousness related to the Huddart and Vanderelli
`combinations which are Grounds 1E and 1F respectively.
` Turning to Slide 4, we have provided a brief
`overview of the '982 patent.
` The '982 patent holds itself as being about
`streaming audio, as we see at the top.
` The summary of the invention in Column 2 of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`patent focuses exclusively on the connectivity of the
`earphones to various audio sources via various network
`types, and the detailed description spends the majority of
`its disclosure focusing on these connectivity issues, yet
`you'll hear a lot today about the alleged complexities of
`entirely different parts of the earphones, things like the
`reliability of the battery, the selection of the right
`transducer, and the materials needed to package the
`earphones effectively.
` As you hear these arguments, recall that many of
`these alleged complexities are spoken of very little, if at
`all, in the '982 patent specification, and this is important
`for assessing obviousness, as we'll discuss.
` With that in mind, let's jump to Slide 7.
` As you see here on Slide 7, we start our
`conversation with respect to the success of a POSITA in
`making the petition's proposed combination of Rosener,
`Hankey, and Haupt, and various issues raised by Koss with
`respect to disclosures of the prior art.
` If we turn to Slide 8, we'll see that these
`arguments implicate a number of different limitations of
`Claim 1 highlighted in bold on the slide. You may need to
`zoom in to see the bolding. What many of these arguments
`come down to, though, is the disclosure of the prior art
`references and the skill of a POSITA in implementing them.
` What we see when we actually look at the prior art
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`is that the prior art references provide just as much and,
`in fact, more implementation details than the '982 patent.
` Thus, under the Federal Circuit's In Re: Epstein
`case, we can conclude that if a POSITA could implement the
`'982 patent claims based on the '982 patent disclosure, they
`could have equally implemented the proposed combination.
` But to set the stage, let's step back and start by
`taking a moment to understand the proposed combinations and
`why a POSITA would have been motivated to make them.
` On Slide 9, we see excerpts from the petition
`describing the combination of Rosener and Hankey, the two
`primary references.
` In short, Rosener discloses a pair of small,
`physically separate earphones 502 and 504, and it provides
`details about how these earphones receive audio from an
`audio source in synchronized playback with one another.
` Like the '982 patent, Rosener primarily focuses on
`the connectivity of those earbuds and leaves the details of
`the specific physical layout of the components to the
`POSITA.
` As described in the petition, which we see at the
`bottom, when seeking to implement the features disclosed by
`Rosener, a POSITA would have found it obvious to turn to
`Hankey which discloses many of the same physical components
`and also provides an obvious example of a physical layout
`for those components that a POSITA would have utilized in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`actually building a pair of the earphones.
` If you turn to Slide 10, Hankey provides much more
`detailed schematics that teach a POSITA at least one obvious
`way to implement earphones like those disclosed in Rosener.
` As explained in the petition, Hankey recognized the
`need to account for size and weight when designing small
`earphones. For example, paragraph 11 of Hankey, which is
`cited to here but is not actually provided on the slide,
`states, "The size and weight of headsets can be key issues
`because of how they typically mount to a user's ear. A
`heavy or large headset can pull on a user's ear, creating an
`uncomfortable fit. The shape of headset earpieces, e.g.
`earbuds, may also be an important design consideration to
`take into account."
` Thus, as explained in the petition and shown in the
`figures at the right of this slide, Hankey provides
`techniques for packaging electronics within a small, compact
`unit to alleviate the size and shape hassles of conventional
`headsets.
` Hankey's techniques fall directly within the
`explicit goals of Rosener. Paragraphs 6 through 10 of
`Rosener describe a desire to develop wireless earbuds that
`avoided the need for uncomfortable and/or disruptive
`headbands that are required by other larger over-the-ear
`headphones. That makes Hankey a natural place for a POSITA
`to turn when seeking to implement Rosener's earphones.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` Slide 11 includes key excerpts from Hankey that
`teach how a POSITA could separate the electronics of an
`earphone into multiple smaller circuit boards and connect
`them via flexible circuit boards.
` What we see in the figures at right is an example
`implementation of an earphone with the components laid out
`just as described in Claim 1 of the '982 patent.
` For example, in Figure 20C at the bottom, we see an
`implementation in which the wireless communication circuit,
`processor circuit, and acoustic transducer are all in the
`body portion, which here is labeled 2014, it's the bulbous
`portion, kind of, above the lower, longer portion.
` Turning to Slide 12, we see the similarity in the
`general form factor of the Rosener earphones in the upper
` left and the Hankey headset on the upper right, and thus,
` the petition and Dr. Cooperstock explain that a POSITA would
` have found it obvious to make the proposed combination and
` implement the Rosener earphones in a layout similar to that
` disclosed in Hankey.
` Koss' arguments against this combination largely
` attempt to play games with the skill of a POSITA or muddy
` how a POSITA would read what is otherwise clear and
` straightforward in the disclosures of the references, and
` we'll walk you through some of those examples now.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Mr. Holt, before you get there,
`just give me your position on the person of ordinary skill
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`and the design of these wireless earphones, because patent
`owner makes the point that Mr. Cooper -- or I can't
`remember -- I think he's a doctor, I don't want to --
` MR. HOLT: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: -- offend him -- that he's not a
`designer of such equipment and has, in fact, a greater than
`the ordinary skill.
` What's your position there?
` MR. HOLT: Well, Your Honor, we believe that the
`definition of the POSITA in the petition is the correct one,
`but that it would, in fact, encompass the ability to create
`these earphones.
` The questions that were raised by patent owner
`during the deposition and that were highlighted in the POR --
`and we'll go through some of those in later slides -- are
`largely about issues of whether or not Dr. Cooperstock could,
`for example, explain exactly mechanically how a transducer
`works or exactly how the circuit board in Hankey would have
`been designed and what materials are used.
` We don't actually think that a POSITA has to be able
` to create all of the components of the earphones from
` scratch, we think that a POSITA that meets the definition
` provided in the petition would have been able to take
` off-the-shelf and known materials, like those described in
` the references as well as those that were brought forward in
` the reply to respond to Koss' arguments about whether
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` certain things were known or not known, and be able to
` simply package them together because the teachings to do so
` were in the references themselves.
` Does that answer your question, Judge Anderson?
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Yeah. Go ahead.
` MR. HOLT: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
` One example of the type of argument about a POSITA
`that I was just talking about we can see on Slide 13. And
`we see Koss arguing that a POSITA would not have had the
`skill necessary to combine the references because
`Dr. Cooperstock could not name a suitable material for the
`flexible electrical connector disclosed in Hankey, but their
`argument misses the proper legal test entirely.
` The proof of obviousness does not require a POSITA
`to be able to make every element from scratch in order for
`that POSITA to be able to make and use explicitly disclosed
`components that are in the prior art, that would be like
`saying a broad claim to a vehicle with a six-cylinder engine
`and four tires is not obvious because the POSITA did not
`have the exact chemical compound of the best possible tires
`or the exact cylinder size of the engine.
` So long as the prior art disclosed cars with
`six-cylinder engines and tires and a POSITA could obtain
`those components off the shelf as of the claim's priority
`date, it would be obvious for that POSITA to make the
`broadly claimed car.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` That's exactly what we have here. The reply, which
`we see on the lower right of the slide, 13 that is, cites to
`various prior art references demonstrating that flexible
`circuit boards, like disclosed in Hankey, were well known
`before the critical date so the POSITA need not create them
`from scratch, they wouldn't need to know the best materials,
`but need only use those known materials in the manner
`specifically disclosed in Hankey. That is the very essence
`of obviousness.
` On Slide 16, we see a similar argument with respect
`to the transducer that we discussed a moment ago. Koss
`argues that a POSITA would not have had the skill necessary
`to implement the proposed combination because
`Dr. Cooperstock could not explain the mechanical details of
`how the disclosed transducers operate, but a POSITA need not
`know these details so long as such transducers were widely
`known and available, which they were. Indeed, the
`disclosures of both Rosener and Hankey suggest as much. For
`example, in the top right of Slide 16, we see Rosener's
`discussion of various types of such transducers.
` And we see on Slide 17 the fact that the '982 patent
`spends even less time focusing on the details of its own
`transducer, it means that if the '982 disclosure enables a
`POSITA to make the '982 claims, so too does Rosener and
`Hankey, which include at least as much, if not more, detail.
` If we move to Slide 18, we see a different argument,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`but it also relates to a POSITA's understanding of how to
`implement what is otherwise clearly disclosed in Rosener and
`Hankey, which is that each earphone includes a microphone.
` If we jump to Slide 20, we see the key disclosure of
`Rosener in the lower left. Rosener teaches that, "Either/or
`both the first and second data syncs of the various
`embodiments may include or be coupled to a data source such
`as, for example, a sensor or a microphone to allow a data to
`be sent back to an external electronic device."
` That is, Rosener discloses that the data source
`shown, for example, in the embodiment of Figure 9 at right
`may be a microphone and that both earphones may be
`implemented this way.
` In determining whether this disclosure from Rosener
`applies to Figure 9, we asked Koss' expert, Mr. McAlexander,
`during deposition whether the data source 922 in Figure 9
`can be either a sensor or microphone as disclosed here in
`paragraph 56.
` And if you turn back to Slide 19, you see in the
`lower left that he answered, "It can be."
` Thus, the disclosure in paragraph 56 clearly applies
`to each source in Figure 9, and Figure 9 shows the layout of
`each earphone. Paragraph 56 thus teaches a POSITA that each
`of the Figure 9 earphones may include a microphone. That is
`the plain language of Rosener.
` Koss tries to introduce ambiguity into paragraph 56
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`of Rosener by arguing that no such specific embodiment
`explicitly discloses a microphone in each earphone, but
`that's not necessary. Paragraph 56 teaches such an
`implementation to a POSITA.
` That being said, I'd like to give you a sense of how
`Koss is having to bend over backwards to interpret the prior
`art to make this argument by turning to Slide 21.
` Here, we see an excerpt from the patent owner
`response. Koss has quoted Hankey in the center.
` As we see in the highlighted portion from their own
`POR, Hankey teaches that, "Headsets can include one or more
`speakers in proximity to one or both ears for audio output
`and/or one or more microphones for audio input."
` Thus, Hankey also clearly teaches an implementation
`in which the headsets have speakers in proximity to both
`ears and multiple microphones.
` Yet just below this quote we see Koss arguing that
`Hankey merely describes a microphone positioned in one
`earpiece. That argument is not at all supported by the
`prior quote which talks about the headset being split so
`that speakers are in proximity to both ears.
` And even still, this quote from Hankey clearly
`undermines Koss' broader contention in the POR that a POSITA
`would not have wanted to include more than a single
`microphone in Rosener's earphones due to various technical
`complexities that they concoct.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` This quote Koss highlights from Hankey shows that's
`simply not true. POSITAs were, in fact, including multiple
`microphones in their systems as of the critical date.
` Yet another argument about a POSITA's skill and
`ability in implementing what is otherwise explicitly
`disclosed in the prior art can be seen in Slide 25 and
`relates to the claimed ear canal portion of the earphones.
` On Slide 26, we see that, in the petition, Apple
`pointed to Rosener's explicit disclosure that its earphones
`could be implemented as canal phones to meet this feature,
`and Your Honors correctly recognized that this alone was
`enough, that Rosener explicitly discloses canal phones
`renders obvious the claimed ear canal portion.
` When addressing this limitation in the POR, Koss did
`not address the Board's earlier finding that Rosener's
`disclosure alone is sufficient. Instead, Koss simply
`attacks the petition's combination with Dyer.
` However, on page 29 of the petition, which is not
`included here in the slides, I wanted to read from the
`petition because it states, "While the combination of Hankey
`and Rosener teaches a configuration, as recited in the
`challenged claims, to the extent patent owner claims that a
`POSITA would have required additional specificity as to the
`structure of the portion of the canal phone that is inserted
`into a user's ear, Dyer provides the necessary teaching."
` Thus, the combination with Dyer is not necessary to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`reach the merits of whether these claims are obvious. Yet
`even if you evaluate Koss' arguments with respect to Dyer,
`they have little merit.
` If we jump to Slide 30, we see that Koss' arguments
`are very similar to those we saw in the hearing related to
`the '325 patent and the ear lube.
` Koss relied upon the testimony of a Koss employee, a
`clearly interested party, to argue that implementing the
`earphones as canal phones using the Dyer ear tips would have
`led to the earphones falling out of the user's ear.
` However, the basic premise of Koss' argument makes
`little logical sense. Mr. Blair focuses his testimony on
`the idea that the earphone would only be secured by a
`portion of the ear tip being inserted into the ear canal of
`the user, but that's simply not true.
` As explained on pages 15 through 17 of the
`petitioner reply, and shown in the first bullet here on the
`slide on the right, the addition of the Dyer ear tip to the
`Rosener/Hankey earphone would actually have gained further
`security to the user's ear.
` If we jump to Slide 67, we see the proposed
`combination of Rosener, Hankey, and Dyer on the right and a
`figure of the ear from Koss' POR on the left.
` Using Dyer's ear tip, the earbud portion shown in
`Hankey becomes a canal phone and the orange tip extends
`slightly into the ear canal of the user, yet the majority of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`the body portion, like the sub-enclosure portion labeled 115
`and colored gray still sits in the concha of the user's ear.
` This body portion is secured by the user's tragus
`and antitragus, which are flaps near the bottom of the ear
`and are labeled in the figure on the left. You can see the
`little flaps there.
` As Koss acknowledges, the tragus and antitragus are
`how all earbuds are secured in the user's ear. By extending
`the ear tip into a portion of the ear canal, the earpiece
`retains the body portion being held by the tragus and
`antitragus, but also gains some friction from the
`interaction between the ear tip and the ear canal, which
`makes the earphone even more secure than it otherwise would
`have been.
` Thus, setting aside that he's an interested
`declarant that made a number of unjustified assumptions,
`it's quite clear that Mr. Blair's analysis and conclusions
`just don't stand up to plain common sense.
` Are there any questions about that? All right.
` Those are the primary arguments Koss raises with
`respect to independent Claim 1. It's a bit of a hodgepodge,
`but the character of those arguments is all quite similar in
`that they drastically undersell the teachings of the prior
`art and a POSITA's ability to understand and implement those
`teachings.
` Now I'd like to turn to Koss' various arguments with
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` respect to the dependent claims, but before I do, I want to
` pause and just ask are there any further questions more
` generally about Independent Claim 1?
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Mr. Holt, you can assume that we if
`we don't interrupt you, we have no questions.
` MR. HOLT: Okay.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: This causes, sort of, a pause. I
`want you to use your time efficiently so go ahead.
` I don't have any. The other Panel will jump in if
`they do.
` MR. HOLT: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll note that
`going forward. I appreciate it.
` All right. Well, then first we turn to Dependent
` Claims 4 and 5, which evolve a combination with the Haupt
` reference.
` So you can jump back to Slide 32 now. And we see
` the relevant claim language which states that, "The
` processor circuit of the first earphone is for, upon
` activation of a user control of the headphones, initiating
` transmission of a request to a remote network server that is
` remote from the mobile, digital audio player and in
` communication with the mobile, digital audio player via a
`data communication network."
` There seems to have been a clear misunderstanding by
`Koss in their POR about how the petition relied upon Haupt
`in the proposed combination. They mistakenly assume it was
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`the same combination advanced in other proceedings, but it
`was not.
` Thus, as explained in the reply, the entirety of
`Koss' arguments in the POR with respect to the Haupt
`combination do not address the aspects of Haupt actually
`relied upon in the petition and are, therefore, moot.
` Belatedly recognizing this in their sur-reply, Koss
`raised wholly new argument to address the actual
`combinations set forth in the petition. These arguments
`lack any expert support to substantiate the attorney
`argument regarding the teachings of Haupt.
` We'll leave to Your Honors whether it is even proper
`to consider these arguments where neither party has any
`expert testimony to address them, yet we want to talk you
`through the actual combination so that you understand it,
`and this will make clear why even Koss' belated arguments
`are without merit.
` In the petition, the combination with Haupt was
`described with respect to Claims 3 through 5. Koss never
`raises arguments with respect to Dependent Claim 3, which
`relates to two different operational modes of the earphones,
`but Claim 3 is nonetheless important for understanding the
`proposed combination, and the discussion of Claim 3 is
`referenced in the petition when presenting the ground for
`Claim 4.
` In essence, the combination with Haupt is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`illustrated in the figure on the right of Slide 34.
` In the proposed combination, based on the disclosure
`in Haupt, there are two sets of the Rosener/Hankey/Haupt
`earphones and two users that can use them to listen to
`music.
` Based on the combination with Haupt, these
`headphones gain two playback modes that are described in the
`petition.
` In a first playback mode described on this slide,
`each pair of the Rosener/Hankey/Haupt headphones can
`communicate directly with a remote public server labeled OS
`to stream audio, and this is disclosed in Haupt.
` Let's imagine Judge Beamer and Judge McKone are the
`users of these two headphones. In this direct streaming
`mode, Judge Beamer is listening to his favorite Michael
`Bolton song and Judge McKone is listening to his favorite
`Whitney Houston song.
` Each is listening independently and each is able to
`communicate commands to the public server to control
`playback of their independent streams. That is how Haupt
`teaches that each of its headphones work.
` But as we see on Slide 35, this direct connection to
`the server is not the only mode that Haupt discloses. Haupt
`also discloses a master slave configuration in which one of
`the headphones is able to stream its own audio to the other
`headphones so that the users can listen together.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
` Going back to the earlier example, Judge Beamer now
`hears his favorite Britney Spears song and wants to share
`the joy of hearing it with Judge McKone and so initiates
`this master slave mode. In this mode, Haupt teaches that
`Judge Beamer's headphones act as a type of local server and
`share their audio with Judge McKone's headphones.
` As a result of this capability. This means that
`Judge Beamer's headphones are configured to be a mobile
`digital audio player to Judge McKone's headphones. The
`master headphones are certainly mobile, and they are capable
` of acting as the local source of audio for Judge McKone's
` headphones.
` There is no argument on this record that the master
` headphones do not constitute a mobile digital audio player
` as a result of this master slave configuration. Rather, the
` issue is about the headphones' transmission of a request to
` the server.
`
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
