PTAB

IPR2025-01548

Bose Corp v. IngenioSpec LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Head-Worn Wireless Electronic Apparatus
  • Brief Description: The ’518 patent describes a head-worn wireless headset with features including a speaker, microphone, rechargeable battery, an electrical connector with at least two conductive pads for charging, and a touch-sensitive input surface for controlling operations.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1A: Obviousness over Bodley/Griffin - Claims 1, 3, and 15-16 are obvious over Bodley in view of Griffin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bodley (Application # 2004/0137967) and Griffin (WO 02/39600).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bodley disclosed a wireless headset with all major features of claim 1 except for the specific charging connector. Bodley’s headset included a speaker, microphone, rechargeable battery, and a touch-sensitive display. Griffin was alleged to cure this deficiency by disclosing a charging system for a wireless headset that used corresponding conductive terminals (pads) on the headset and a charging station, which were pressed together via springs. For claim 3, Petitioner argued Griffin taught a dual-microphone system for noise cancellation, with one microphone near the user's mouth and another positioned further away to capture ambient noise.
    • Motivation to Combine: Bodley disclosed that its headset could be "coupled to a charger port" but provided no implementation details. Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine Bodley's headset with a known charging technique like Griffin's to implement this feature. A POSITA would also have been motivated to incorporate Griffin's dual-microphone noise-cancellation system into Bodley's headset to achieve the known benefit of improved speech quality.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination required only routine engineering skill to integrate Griffin’s conventional charging and audio components into Bodley’s headset.

Ground 2A: Obviousness over Goh/Dyer/Hollemans - Claims 1-5, 9, and 12-16 are obvious over Goh in view of Dyer and Hollemans.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Goh (WO 03/056790), Dyer (Patent 6,978,163), and Hollemans (Patent 7,925,029).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Goh disclosed a wireless headset with a speaker, microphone, rechargeable battery, and a docking station for recharging. However, Goh did not detail the charging interface or a touch-sensitive surface. Dyer was alleged to teach a charging holder for a wireless headset using spring-loaded pins that engage contacts on the headset, satisfying the "conductive pads" and "spring-force" limitations. Hollemans was alleged to disclose an earbud-style device with a touch-sensitive surface that detects user taps to control functions like volume, satisfying the "touch-sensitive input surface" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Goh's headset with Dyer's specific spring-loaded charging design to implement Goh's generic "docking station" with a known, reliable technique. Further, a POSITA would augment Goh's controller, which used small physical buttons, with Hollemans’ touch-sensitive surface to provide a more convenient and safer method for user control, particularly in situations like driving.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued for a high expectation of success because the combination involved implementing conventional components (spring-loaded charging, touch surfaces) for their intended purposes to improve a known device.

Ground 3A: Obviousness over Griffin/Hollemans - Claims 1, 3-5, 9, and 15-16 are obvious over Griffin in view of Hollemans.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Griffin (WO 02/39600) and Hollemans (Patent 7,925,029).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Griffin disclosed a complete head-worn wireless electronic apparatus that included a speaker, microphone, rechargeable battery, and a charging system with conductive pads that mate with a charging station via spring force. Griffin also taught a dual-microphone noise-cancellation circuit. The only element Petitioner argued was missing from Griffin was a touch-sensitive input surface. Hollemans was alleged to supply this element by teaching a touch-sensitive surface on an earbud to control functions via simple touch commands.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hollemans' touch-sensitive surface with Griffin's headset to improve its usability. Griffin's headset relied on physical switches which, being located on the user's ear, would be difficult to locate and press correctly. Hollemans' touch-sensitive surface offered a known solution to this problem, allowing users to simply tap the headset to control functions, which Hollemans explicitly touted as a safety improvement for users in traffic.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner claimed a reasonable expectation of success because adding Hollemans’ touch-sensitive control functionality to Griffin’s headset would be a routine design modification well within the capabilities of a POSITA.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness grounds. These grounds largely relied on the core Bodley/Griffin, Goh/Dyer/Hollemans, and Griffin/Hollemans combinations and added further references to teach specific features recited in dependent claims. These additional references included Taenzer (voice recognition software), Gillespie (sliding touch controls), Irvin (accelerometers and force sensors to detect headset use), and Glezerman (magnetic attachments).

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 11,829,518 as unpatentable.