PTAB

IPR2021-00221

Apple Inc v. Pinn Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: MOBILE SYSTEM WITH WIRELESS EARBUD
  • Brief Description: The ’066 patent describes a personal wireless media system comprising a base station and a wireless earbud. The earbud can be physically docked with the base station for charging and can be undocked to wirelessly connect with a device like a smartphone for audio playback.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1A: Claims 1, 4, and 6 are obvious over BT Headset, Lydon, and Rabu

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: BT Headset (a collection of 2007 publications describing Apple’s iPhone Bluetooth Headset), Lydon (Patent 8,078,787), and Rabu (Patent 8,086,281).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that BT Headset disclosed the core claimed system: a wireless earbud and a charging station (termed “Dual Dock” and “Travel Cable”) for forming an integrated body. However, BT Headset’s user input button was on the earbud. Lydon was cited for teaching an “intermediate device” (a base station) with its own controller and user input button to initiate a wireless pairing process upon a user request. Rabu was cited for teaching an intelligent charging apparatus with a processor that can automatically pair connected devices and wirelessly exchange information with a smartphone via Bluetooth.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Lydon’s teaching of a user-initiated pairing button on the base station with the BT Headset system as a simple design choice to improve usability, reduce complexity on the space-constrained earbud, and provide the user with explicit control over pairing. A POSITA would further incorporate Rabu’s teachings to enable wireless communication between the base station and smartphone, simplifying the pairing process from the user's perspective while still allowing the earbud to pair through the base station.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success because all references describe similar devices (earbuds, charging stations, smartphones) and functionalities, largely developed by the same company (Apple), making their combination predictable and straightforward.

Ground 1B: Claims 9, 10, 14, 21, 26, 28, 30, 34, and 36 are obvious over BT Headset, Lydon, Rabu, and Kalayjian

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: BT Headset, Lydon, Rabu, and Kalayjian (Application # 2008/0125040).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground incorporated the combination from Ground 1A and added Kalayjian to address limitations related to a mobile application generating sound to locate the earbud system. Kalayjian disclosed a method where a master device (e.g., a smartphone) runs a mobile application that can send a signal to a paired slave device (e.g., a wireless headset), causing the slave device to emit an audible sound to help a user locate it.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to add the functionality taught by Kalayjian to the base system from Ground 1A to solve the known problem of misplacing small, portable devices like wireless earbuds. Adding a "find my earbud" feature would be a predictable and desirable improvement to enhance user convenience.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded predictable results, as Kalayjian employed the same Bluetooth communication protocol used in the other references. Integrating this known technique into the known system of BT Headset/Lydon/Rabu would have been straightforward.

Ground 1C: Claim 38 is obvious over BT Headset, Lydon, Rabu, Kalayjian, and Kim

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: BT Headset, Lydon, Rabu, Kalayjian, and Kim (Application # 2017/0272561).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1B to address claim 38, which required the earbud to automatically generate sound using audio from the smartphone without user input after being unplugged from the base station. Kim disclosed a wireless headset with a separable earpiece that, upon detecting detachment from the main body (base station), automatically activated its Bluetooth interface, established a wireless link, and outputted audio received from a mobile source.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kim’s teachings to enhance user experience by providing seamless audio transition. For example, if a user undocks an earbud while on a phone call, Kim’s system automatically routes the call audio to the earbud without requiring manual intervention. This automation was presented as a known technique for improving a known system to yield the predictable result of increased user convenience.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable, as all references disclosed compatible Bluetooth-based technologies. Implementing Kim's automatic audio-routing feature into the system of Ground 1B would supplement existing functions without altering them.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner relied on claim constructions adopted in a parallel district court proceeding. Key constructions included:
    • “wirelessly pairing”: "establishing a trusted relationship between two devices that allows them to communicate wirelessly."
    • “[in response to pressing…] initiate processing for the wireless pairing with the smartphone to enable the wireless earbud to receive and play audio data originated from the smartphone”: This functional language was central to arguments that Lydon’s user-initiated pairing process, when combined with BT Headset, rendered the claims obvious.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate.
  • The core arguments were that the presiding judge in the parallel district court litigation has a history of postponing trial dates, the COVID-19 pandemic made the scheduled trial date uncertain, and the petition presented a strong case on the merits. Therefore, Petitioner contended that instituting the IPR would serve the interests of system efficiency and patent quality.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14, 21, 30, 34, 36, and 38 of the ’066 patent as unpatentable.