Apple, Inc.v.THX, Ltd.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2015

10937796 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2015)

Trials @uspto.gov Paper: 39
571-272-7822 Entered: June 9, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

APPLE INC.
Petitioner,

v.

THX LTD.
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2
____________

Before MICHAEL W. KIM, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
BRIAN P. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”) requesting
inter partes review of claims 1–6, 8, 10, 16, and 18–20 of U.S. Patent No.
7,433,483 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’483 patent”). We instituted an inter partes
review of claims 1–3 of the ’483 patent on the ground of obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Tomonori,1 Virva,2 and Sadaie.3 Paper 10, 28–29
(“Decision to Institute” or “Dec.”). We did not institute an inter partes
review of claims 4–6, 8, 10, 16, and 18–20 of the ’483 patent. Id.
THX Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 23,
“PO. Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 25, “Pet. Reply”).
Patent Owner did not file a motion to amend claims, and neither party
filed a motion to exclude evidence.
Petitioner relies on Declarations of Dr. Jeffrey S. Vipperman in
support of its Petition (Ex. 1002) and Reply (Ex. 1017). Patent Owner relies
on the Declaration of Dr. Stephen Elliott in support of its Response
(Ex. 2007). Petitioner relies on deposition testimony of Dr. Elliott
(Ex. 1016) in support of its Reply. Patent Owner relies on deposition
testimony of Dr. Vipperman (Ex. 2017), including its Corrected Motion for
Observation Regarding Cross-Examination of Dr. Vipperman (Paper 35,

1 EP744880 to Tomonori et al., issued Nov. 27, 1996 (“Tomonori,”
Ex. 1004).
2 US 3,687,220 to Virva, issued August 29, 1972 (“Virva,” Ex. 1009).
3 WO 00/52958 to Sadaie et al., issued September 8, 2000 (“Sadaie,” Ex.
1003). Sadaie is a Japanese language publication. Petitioner submitted the
Japanese language publication as Exhibit 1010 and a certified English
language translation as Exhibit 1003. All citations herein are to the English
language translation in Exhibit 1003.
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

3

“PO Observ.”), to which Petitioner filed a Response (Paper 36, “Pet. Resp.
to PO Observ.”).
We heard oral argument on February 18, 2015. A transcript is entered
as Paper 38 (“Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
We determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 1 and 2 of the ’483 patent are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103. We further determine Petitioner has not shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 3 of the ’483 patent is unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
A. Related Proceeding
The ’483 patent is the subject of litigation in the Northern District of
California, THX, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-01161. Pet. 1.
B. The ’483 Patent
The ’483 patent is directed to sound reproduction, and, in particular,
narrow profile speaker configurations and systems. Ex. 1001, Title, 1:20–
23. The ’483 patent describes a speaker configuration having a relatively
narrow sound output region relative to the size of the speaker face. Id. at
3:22–26, 5:17–20. Figure 1 of the ’483 patent is reproduced below.

IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

4

Figure 1, oblique frontal view of a narrow profile speaker.
As illustrated in Figure 1, above, narrow profile speaker unit 100 has
speaker 107 supported by baffle 101 and mounting surface 102, sound
reflecting surface 103 disposed in parallel orientation to mounting surface
102, and sidewalls 104 and 105. Id. at 5:57–64. Surfaces 102, 103,
sidewalls 104, 105, and the back wall collectively define sound duct 115. Id.
at 5:60–64. In operation, speaker 107 receives audio signals from a source
such as CD players, cassette players, radios, and sound processors. Id. at
6:7–12. The primary acoustic output of sound waves from speaker 107 is
directed toward sound reflecting surface 103, and mounting surface 102
acoustically isolates the speaker’s rearward radiating sound waves from its
forward radiating sound waves. Id. at 5:66–6:6. Sound waves output from
speaker 107 are redirected and “turned” by ninety degrees such that they are
channeled by the sound duct to output slot 106 and released “while retaining
a sufficient degree of sound quality.” Id. at 7:44–48.
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

5

Figure 3C illustrates an embodiment claimed in claim 1 of the ’483
patent, and Figure 3C is reproduced below.

Figure 3C, sectional top view showing sound damping material.
In Figure 3C, above, sound damping material 359 is placed within the
sound duct such that the sound damping material follows along back wall
352, contours around speaker cone 347, and “follows along sidewalls [344,
345] to the edge of output slot 346.” Id. at 8:61–66. In this configuration,
the sound damping material is “forming sides of the sound duct” as recited
in claim 1. Id. at 30:5–6. “Sound output from speaker 347 emanates from
output slot 346.” Id. at 8:66–67. Sound damping material within the sound
duct “may help prevent, e.g., undesirable interference or reflections within
the duct . . . that may otherwise be caused by soundwaves reflecting from the
backwall [] or back corners . . . [and] may . . . also help to prevent the
creation of standing waves.” Id. at 8:17–24 (as referenced at 9:1–2). Sound
damping material according to the embodiment in Figure 3C also “may
further reduce the possibility of reflection from sidewalls [344, 345] and/or
standing (lateral) waves.” Id. at 8:54–55 (as referenced at 9:1–2).
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

6

C. Claims
Claims 1–3 are reproduced below (emphases added):
1. A narrow profile sound system, comprising:
a drive unit disposed on a mounting surface, said
mounting surface forming a barrier acoustically isolating the
drive unit’s forward radiation from its rearward radiation;
a sound reflecting surface facing the drive unit and
substantially parallel with the mounting surface; and
sound damping material disposed between said sound
reflecting surface and the mounting surface, the sound
reflecting surface and the mounting surface defining a bottom
and top of a narrow sound duct terminating in an elongate
output slot, with the sound damping material forming sides of
the sound duct, whereby forward radiation from the drive unit is
turned at a substantially right angle and channeled along a
straight path towards the output slot;
wherein the sound damping material forms an outer
shape of the sound duct which reduces sound reflections at the
end of the sound duct opposite the output slot and thereby
mitigates standing waves.
2. The narrow profile sound system of claim 1, wherein sound
emanating from the output slot is characterized by a wide
horizontal dispersion angle and a narrow vertical dispersion
angle as a result of the elongate shape of the output slot.
3. The narrow profile sound system of claim 1, wherein said
sound damping material forms a back wall of the sound duct,
said back wall substantially following a curved contour of a
portion of a drive unit cone farthest opposite from the output
slot.
Ex. 1001, 29:6230:23.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
We determine the meaning of certain claim terms for purposes of this
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

7

decision. In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the patent
specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
778 F.3d 1271, 1279–81 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set
forth in the specification with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We also
must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written
description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the
embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We
construe the term below in accordance with these principles.
1. “sound reflecting surface”
The term “sound reflecting surface” is recited in independent claim 1
of the ’483 patent. Petitioner does not offer a construction for “sound
reflecting surface.” In our Decision to Institute, we determined the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “sound reflecting surface” is “a surface that
redirects sound waves output from a speaker, not made of sound damping
material.” Dec. 11. Patent Owner states in its Response that “[f]or purposes
of this proceeding, Patent Owner applies the Board’s construction” (PO
Resp. 6), but Patent Owner contests Petitioner’s assertion that Tomonori
discloses a “sound reflecting surface.” PO Resp. 31–34. We maintain our
construction of “sound reflecting surface” for the reasons provided below.
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

8

Claim 1 recites “a sound reflecting surface facing the drive unit and
substantially parallel with the mounting surface” in which the drive unit
(speaker) is disposed. Ex. 1001, 29:66–67. Such an arrangement is shown
in Figure 2B, reproduced below.4

Figure 2B, sectional view of narrow profile speaker.
Figure 2B depicts a sectional view showing the recited arrangement of
speaker 107 located in mounting surface 102 parallel to sound reflecting
surface 103. Id. at 6:14–17, Fig. 2B. The’483 patent states that “a reflecting
surface disposed immediately in front of the face of the speaker cone
redirects the sound output, through a sound duct or otherwise, and causes the
sound to emanate from a slot or other aperture.” Id. at 3:27–30 (emphasis
added). With regard to Figure 2B, sound reflecting surface 103 is described
as follows:

4 Figure 17B depicts a similar arrangement. Ex. 1001, 22:55–64, Fig. 17B.
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

9

Preferably, the sound reflecting surface 103 is spaced at a
distance from the front face of the speaker 107 such that the
duct or chamber 115 defined by the surrounding sidewalls 104,
105 and backwall 112 does not permit soundwaves of the
primary acoustic output from the speaker 107 to unfold
significantly within the confines of the duct 115, as pressure
effects will tend to cause the lateral soundwaves that emanate
from the output slot 106 to have sound quality and dynamic
range comparable to the soundwaves initially emitted from the
speaker 107 itself.
Id. at 6:18–27.
In operation, sound is output from speaker 107 toward sound
reflecting surface 103 and redirected through output slot 106, described as
“[having] a relatively narrow profile.” Id. at 6:28–30. The relative
dimensions of output slot 106 “[are] generally configured so as to provide a
narrower profile of the effective area from which the soundwaves emanate,
as compared to the front face of the speaker[].” Id. at 6:40–43; see also id.
at 5:16–20 (“a relatively narrow sound output region in relation to the size of
the speaker face(s)”). The configuration described, including the relative
dimensions of the output slot, describe the “narrow sound duct” recited in
claim 1.
Claim 1 recites additional limitations that define a narrow profile
sound duct: “the sound reflecting surface and the mounting surface defining
a bottom and top of a narrow sound duct terminating in an elongate output
slot.” Id. at 30:2–5. The relative dimensions of the narrow sound duct are
positive structural limitations of the claimed narrow profile sound system,
which must be considered in context when defining the recited “sound
reflecting surface.” When read in context and in light of the specification,
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

10

portions of which are discussed immediately above, the narrow sound duct
terminating in an elongate output slot has a sound reflecting surface (bottom)
and a mounting surface (top) separated by a distance that is less than the
distance between two side walls, in order to form the “elongate output slot.”
The claimed narrow profile structure outputs high quality sound by not
permitting sound waves “to unfold significantly within the confines of the
duct” and by generating “pressure effects” that will cause high quality lateral
sound waves to emanate from the elongate output slot. Id. at 6:18–27.
Claim 1 further distinguishes the top mounting surface and bottom
sound reflecting surface from sides of the narrow sound duct, reciting
“sound damping material disposed between said sound reflecting surface and
the mounting surface . . . with the sound damping material forming sides of
the sound duct.” Id. at 30:1–6 (emphasis added). The fact that sound
damping material must be located “between” the sound reflecting surface
and mounting surface and is “forming sides” of the narrow sound duct,
indicates that sound damping material is not placed on the “sound reflecting
surface.” The sound reflecting surface may be made of a durable material
such as “high impact plastic or aluminum, or any other suitable material.”
Id. at 9:52–55.
Figure 3C is again reproduced below.5

5 Figure 17 A depicts a similar embodiment. Ex. 1001, Fig. 17A, 22:42–48.
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

11

Figure 3C, sectional top view showing sound damping material.
In Figure 3C, above, sound damping material 359 is placed within the
duct such that the sound damping material follows along back wall 352,
contours around speaker cone 347, and “follows along sidewalls [344, 345]
to the edge of output slot 346.” Id. at 8:61–66. In this configuration, the
sound damping material forms “sides of the sound duct” as recited in claim 1
and “forms a back wall of the sound duct . . . following a curved contour of a
portion of a drive unit cone farthest opposite from the output slot” as recited
in claim 3. Id. at 30:5–6.6 Sound damping material along the back wall and
sides of the narrow sound duct “may help prevent, e.g., undesirable
interference or reflections within the duct . . . that may otherwise be caused
by soundwaves reflecting from the backwall [] or back corners . . . [and]
may . . . also help to prevent the creation of standing waves.” Id. at 8:17–24
(as referenced at 9:1–2). Sound damping material along the sides of the
narrow sound duct according to the embodiment in Figure 3C also “may

6 The claims, therefore, separately recite and distinguish the sides of the
narrow sound duct from the mounting surface, sound reflecting surface, and
back wall.
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

12

further reduce the possibility of reflections from sidewalls [344, 345] and/or
standing (lateral) waves.” Id. at 8:54–55 (as referenced at 9:1–2). Sound
damping material, in contrast to the material forming the sound reflecting
surface, preferably comprises non-resonant material with sound absorbing
qualities such as “expanded or compressed foam,” “rubber,” or “reinforced
paper, fabric, or fiber.” Id. at 8:32–40.
The language of claim 1 also distinguishes the function of sound
damping material from that of a sound reflecting surface. A concluding
wherein clause states, “wherein the sound damping material forms an outer
shape of the sound duct which reduces sound reflections at the end of the
sound duct opposite the output slot and thereby mitigates standing waves.”
Id. at 30:10–13. The recited claim language is consistent with the
description in specification for the use of sound damping material.
In sum, the ’483 patent describes and claims a sound reflecting
surface that redirects sound waves output from the speaker towards the
elongate output slot, whereas sound damping material absorbs standing
waves inside the sound duct. The ’483 patent goes to great lengths to
distinguish a sound reflecting surface from a sound damping surface.
Furthermore, given that “sound damping material” is different from a “sound
reflecting surface” and both are recited as separate claim limitations, it
follows that a sound reflecting surface is not made of sound damping
material.
For the reasons given above, we construe “sound reflecting surface,”
in the context of claim 1 and in light of the ’483 patent specification, as “a
surface that redirects sound waves output from a speaker, not made of sound
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

13

damping material.”
2. Other Terms
Petitioner proposes to construe additional claim terms. Pet. 11–14.
We determine that no express construction of these additional terms is
necessary for purposes of this decision.
B. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–3 over Tomonori, Virva, and
Sadaie
1. Tomonori
Tomonori discloses a narrow profile television speaker designed to fill
the “dead space” on either side of a cathode ray tube inside a television
cabinet. Ex. 1004, Abstract, 1:10–18, Figs. 1, 22. A sound tube (duct)
connected to the speaker guides sound waves to an elongated opening at the
front side of the television cabinet. Id. Petitioner relies primarily on the
embodiments shown in Tomonori’s Figures 9, 10, and 16 in support of
Petitioner’s obviousness argument. Pet. 41–44.
Figure 10 is reproduced below:

Figure 10, sectional view of a narrow profile speaker.
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

14

In Tomonori Figure 10, above, sound waves radiated from speaker 3
are redirected at a substantially right angle and channeled along sound tube 8
to an output aperture adjacent microphone 9. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs.
9, 10, 16; Ex. 1002 ¶ 110). Tomonori discloses that “one of the problems of
directing sound through a duct is the presence of standing waves inside the
duct, which can degrade sound quality.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:12–18;
quoting Ex. 1002 ¶ 50). Tomonori discloses two solutions to the problem.
Tomonori locates his speaker at an “anti-node,” to prevent longitudinal
standing waves, which corresponds to a distance that is 1/3 the length of the
sound tube from the closed end. PO Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:1–11, 8:3–
9, 8:57–9:5; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 110–112). Tomonori also discloses packing the
closed end of the sound tube with sound absorbing material “adapted to
absorb standing waves.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:57–2:5).
Figure 16 of Tomonori is reproduced below:

Figure 16, sectional view of a narrow profile speaker
packed with sound absorbing material in the closed end.
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

15

Tomonori Figure 16, above, illustrates the placement of a speaker at
an anti-node, located 1/3 the distance from the back wall of the sound tube,
and sound absorbing material filling the closed end of the sound tube. Id. at
16, 42–43 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 16, 1:57–2:5, 8:14–25; Ex. 1002 ¶ 109).
The sound absorbing material absorbs “sound waves returning upon
reflection at the open end of the sound tube . . . whereby the resonance of
standing waves is inhibited.” Id. at 42.
Tomonori’s Figure 17 charts frequency response for the speaker
illustrated in Figure 16. PO Resp. 35 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 118). We reproduce
annotated Figure 17 from Dr. Elliott’s Declaration (Ex. 2007 ¶ 118) below.

Figure 17, frequency response chart for the embodiment of Figure 16.
With regard to Figure 17, above, Tomonori discloses that “peak dips
are effectively suppressed at medium to high frequencies” due to the sound-
absorbing material in the closed end of the sound tube. PO Resp. 35 (citing
Ex. 1004, 8:19–25). Tomonori’s Figure 17 does show a peak dip at 3.4 kHz
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

16

(red arrow added by Dr. Elliott) and a smaller peak dip at 1.6 kHz. Id.
(citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 118). Tomonori is otherwise silent with respect to the
identified peak dips in Figure 17.
2. Differences Between Tomonori and Claim 1 of the ’483 Patent
a. Petitioner’s Argument 
Petitioner asserts that Tomonori discloses all limitations of
independent claim 1 except for “sound damping material forming sides of
the sound duct.” Pet. 41–44 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 9, 10, 16; Ex. 1002 ¶¶
104–113). Petitioner argues it would have been obvious for one skilled in
the art to extend the sound damping material of Tomonori, which is packed
into the closed end of the sound duct (Ex. 1004, Fig. 16), to form sides of a
sound duct. Id. at 4445 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112, 113).7 Petitioner states
that it was known to use sound damping material inside of a sound duct to
prevent spurious resonances or standing waves (id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1004,
1:58–2:3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 112)), and Tomonori recognized that “the sound duct
and components therein could be implemented in many different
configurations” (id. (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 1–22)). Petitioner further argues
that Virva and Sadaie teach the use of sound damping material on the sides
of a sound duct to suppress standing waves inside the duct, thereby

7 Petitioner submits evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art of
speaker design would have a master’s or undergraduate degree, including
courses in acoustics, with at least two years of experience in speaker design
or the equivalent. Pet. 10 n.1 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 12); see id. at 4–6 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–24 (“Technology Background”)). Patent Owner does not
challenge Petitioner’s evidence. Based on the evidence of record, we agree
with, and apply, Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art of
speaker design to our analysis.
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

17

providing a reason for one skilled in the art to extend the sound damping
material of Tomonori to form sides of the sound duct. Id. at 44–45 (citing
Ex. 1009, 3:42–46; Ex. 1003, 12, Figs. 12–18; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112, 113). With
regard to Sadaie, in particular, Dr. Vipperman emphasizes Sadaie’s
disclosure that the use of sound damping material on the sides of Sadaie’s
narrow sound duct “enables the sharpness of a fundamental wave resonance
of a standing wave determined by the length of the sound path 42 to be
suppressed.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112).
b. Patent Owner’s Argument 
Patent Owner argues that Tomonori does not disclose the “sound
reflecting surface” recited in claim 1 of the ’483 patent, and that Tomonori
does not support any reason to place sound damping material (derived from
another reference) on the “sides of the sound duct,” as recited in claim 1.
PO Resp. 31–37. Patent Owner argues that, when construing “sound
reflecting surface” in our Decision to Institute, we “made no finding that
Tomonori disclosed a sound reflecting surface or materials for such a
surface, and indeed Tomonori did not.” Id. at 33. Patent Owner next argues
that, given Tomonori’s silence regarding the problem of vertical and lateral
resonances interfering with quality sound reproduction, “there is no acoustic
justification for preferentially placing sound damping material along the
sidewalls as opposed to the top and bottom walls, as the ’483 claims
require.”8 Id. at 36.

8 We note claim 1 requires that the bottom surface of the sound duct be a
“sound reflecting surface” not made of sound damping material, in
accordance with our claim construction. The claim language further recites

IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

18

c. Analysis 
Petitioner has provided substantial and persuasive evidence to support
the finding that Tomonori discloses every limitation of the ’483 patent claim
1, except Petitioner acknowledges Tomonori does not disclose “sound
damping material forming sides of the sound duct.” Pet. 41–44 (citing Ex.
1004, Figs. 1, 9, 10, 16, 1:12–35, 1:57–2:3, 3:6–12, 5:41–45, 6:20–31, 6:48–
7:7, 8:14–25, 9:45–54; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 104–112). Patent Owner argues that
Tomonori does not disclose a “sound reflecting surface” or “sound damping
material forming sides of the sound duct.” PO Resp. 30–37. We address
first Patent Owner’s contention that Tomonori does not disclose a “sound
reflecting surface” in accordance with our claim construction.
We have construed “sound reflecting surface” as “a surface that
redirects sound waves output from a speaker, not made of sound damping
––––––––––––––––––––––
placement of sound damping material “between” the mounting surface and
sound reflecting surface, but the parties agree the claim language does not
indicate clearly whether the mounting surface may or may not be made of
sound damping material. Tr. 8:12–22 (MR. CAVANAUGH: “[I]t’s not
saying that the sound damping material either is not on the mounting surface
or that it is.”), 31:21–32:5 (MR. KELLEY: “It says there’s a mounting face
opposite, but it doesn’t specify whether that’s sound absorptive or reflective
one way or the other in the claims.”). We note the relevant ’483 patent
drawings do not show a top (mounting) surface lined with, or formed of,
sound damping material. Ex. 1001, 8:4–16, 8:41–50, 8:56–66, 22:42–48,
22:55–23:3, Figs. 3A–C, 17A–C; Tr. 9:6–16, 32:6–10. By the same token,
the ’483 patent does not describe or claim the mounting surface as a type of
sound reflecting surface, as suggested by Patent Owner in its Response. See
PO Resp. 36; Pet. Reply 5–6. In any event, we need not decide the issue for
purposes of this decision.

IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

19

material.” With regard to whether Tomonori discloses a surface that
redirects sound waves output from a speaker, Figures 9, 10, and 16 show
speaker 3 (the claimed “drive unit”) disposed on a “mounting surface” (the
top surface of the “narrow sound duct”) that acoustically isolates the
speaker’s forward radiation from the speaker’s rearward radiation. Pet. 41–
42 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 9, 10, 16, 5:41–45, 6:28–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 105–
107). The speaker faces the bottom surface of the narrow sound duct in a
“substantially parallel” relationship. Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 9, 10,
16, 6:53–57, 6:28–31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 108). Figures 9 and 10 show microphone
9 located just outside the “elongate output slot” of Tomonori’s “narrow
sound duct” to capture the sound output and determine the sound pressure-
frequency characteristics. Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:28–31, 6:53–57;
Ex. 1002 ¶ 108); Ex. 1004, 6:58–7:2. Microphone 9 is oriented at
approximately a 90 ̊ angle to the direction of forward radiation output from
speaker 3. Ex. 1004, Figs. 9, 10, 16.
The frequency characteristics of Tomonori’s Figure 16 embodiment
are depicted graphically in Figure 17. Ex. 1004, Fig. 17. Tomonori
describes the sound output from a similar speaker (without sound absorbing
material (Figures 13A and 15)), as having “satisfactory sound pressure-
frequency characteristics.” Ex. 1004, 7:53–8:25. The geometry and
acoustical output of Tomonori’s sound duct depicted in Figures 9, 10, and
16, therefore, illustrate “forward radiation from the drive unit is turned at a
substantially right angle and channeled along a straight path towards the
output slot” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 9, 10, 16;
Ex. 1002 ¶ 110).
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

20

For the reasons given above, we find Tomonori discloses the first part
of our construction of the claimed “sound reflecting surface,” namely a
surface that redirects sound waves output from a speaker.
With regard to whether Tomonori discloses a sound reflecting surface
not made of sound damping material, we noted previously that Tomonori
packs sound damping material into the closed end of the sound duct behind
the rear edge of the speaker cone, as shown in the cross-hatched area of
Figure 16. Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 16, 17, 1:57–2:3, 3:6–12,
8:14–25, 9:45–54; Ex. 1002 ¶ 109). Accordingly, by necessary implication
in view of (i) the absence of cross-hatched areas on the top, bottom, and side
walls of the sound duct, and (ii) our analysis immediately above regarding
Tomonori’s ability to redirect sound waves at a substantially right angle
toward the elongate output slot, we find the bottom surface of the narrow
sound duct facing the speaker in Figure 16 is not made of sound damping
material. See Pet. Reply 12. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s
expert, Dr. Elliott, does not dispute the fact that Tomonori discloses a sound
reflecting surface. Id.; see Ex. 1016, 104:6–8. We find, therefore, that
Tomonori satisfies our claim construction for a “sound reflecting surface,”
namely a surface that redirects sound waves output from a speaker, not made
of sound damping material.
For the reasons stated above, we agree with Petitioner that Tomonori
Figure 16 discloses a “sound reflecting surface . . . defining a bottom . . . of a
narrow sound duct,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs.
9, 10, 16, 6:53–57, 6:28–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 108–110). The remaining
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

21

difference between claim 1 of the ’483 patent and Tomonori is the absence
of “sound damping material forming sides of the sound duct” in Tomonori.
3. Whether Tomonori, Virva, and Sadaie provide a reason or
motivation for one of skill in the art to use sound damping material
to form sides of Tomonori’s sound duct
a. The use of sound damping material in the ’483 patent
The ’483 patent describes unwanted resonances associated with
standing waves inside a narrow sound duct. Ex. 1001, 8:6–66, 23:7–21.
The ’483 patent describes the placement of sound damping material along
the back wall of the sound duct to prevent “expansion of the sound waves in
a rearward direction, and thereby reducing potential interference or other
undesirable acoustic effects.” Id. at 22:64–23:3, Fig. 17B. Claim 1 recites
“wherein the sound damping material forms an outer shape of the sound duct
which reduces sound reflections at the end of the sound duct opposite the
output slot and thereby mitigates standing waves.” Id. at 30:10–13.
The ’483 patent further describes placement of sound damping
material on the side walls and, optionally, the back wall of the sound duct,
but not on the bottom or top surfaces. Id. at 8:6–66, 22:42–23:3. Figures
17A–C of the ’483 patent illustrate an embodiment of claim 1 where sound
damping material is placed on the side walls and back wall of a narrow
sound duct terminating in an elongate output slot, but not on the top or
bottom surfaces of the sound duct. Id. at 22:42–23:3, Figs. 17A–C. Claim 1
recites “sound damping material disposed between said sound reflecting
surface and the mounting surface . . . . with the sound damping material
forming sides of the sound duct.” Id.at 30:5–6.

IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

22

b. Virva
Virva discloses a speaker enclosure where “all inside surfaces of the
enclosure should be treated with acoustically absorbing material to prevent
spurious resonances or standing waves from developing within the
enclosure.” Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1009, 3:42–46; Ex. 1002 ¶ 112). Virva
Figure 2 depicts a labyrinth or serpentine type speaker enclosure. PO Resp.
41; see Ex. 1009, 4:2–14; Ex. 2007 ¶ 32.
Virva’s Figure 2 is reproduced below.

Virva Figure 2, labyrinth enclosure with sound damping material.
Virva’s labyrinth-type speaker enclosure, above, is designed to
provide a “loading” for the speakers to improve their low-frequency
response at “the quarter wave length of a specific frequency, typically near
the fundamental resonance of the loudspeaker.” PO Resp. 37–38 (citing
Ex. 1009, 1:51–56, 3:39–45; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 32, 95). To avoid or limit
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

23

interference at mid-range or higher frequencies, sound damping material
lines the walls of the labyrinth to damp out the higher frequency components
of the signal. Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 2011, 76; Ex. 2007 ¶ 33). Virva discloses
“a speaker enclosure where ‘all inside surfaces of the enclosure should be
treated with acoustically absorbing material to prevent spurious resonances
or standing waves from developing within the enclosure.’” Pet. 44 (citing
Ex. 1009, 3:42–46).
c. Sadaie
Sadaie describes a relatively small base-range speaker system.
Ex. 1003, 2. Figure 3 of Sadaie illustrates a cross-sectional view of one
embodiment of a speaker system. Id. at 5.
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

24

Figure 3 of Sadaie is reproduced below.

Figure 3, sectional view of Sadaie’s speaker system.
As illustrated in Figure 3, above, the speaker system has speaker unit
21 mounted in an enclosure. Id. at 7. Sound guiding part 40 has sound
source space 41 and “asymmetrical” (narrowing, curved) sound path 42. Id.
at 8. Sound source space 41 surrounds speaker unit 21. Id. Sound waves
radiated from speaker unit 21 are propagated through sound source space 41
and sound path 42 through output slot 45 to free space 70. Id.; Pet. 19
(citing Ex. 1003, 16). As best shown in the sectional views of Figures 17
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

25

and 18, Sadaie’s sound guide forms a sound duct terminating in an output
slot. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003, 7, 8, 14–16, Figs. 16–18).
Sadaie teaches that, to maximize bass-range performance, sound is
radiated into sound guide 40, which causes “high compression and
expansion of the air,” thereby lowering the fundamental frequency of the
speaker. PO Resp. 48 (citing Ex. 1003, 3; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 100–102). The high
compression is created by narrowing the width of sound path 42, illustrated
in Figure 3 above, such that the width of section 43 (W1) is narrower than
both section 44 (W2) and exit section 45 (output slot) of sound path 42. Id.
(citing Ex. 1003, 8; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 101–103). Sadaie’s speaker system is a
type of bandpass enclosure designed to increase low-frequency output over a
narrow frequency range. Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1003, 2; Ex. 2007 ¶ 103).
Figure 14 illustrates a cross-sectional view of an alternative
embodiment of Sadaie’s speaker system (Ex. 1003, 11).
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

26

Sadaie’s Figure 14 is reproduced below.

Figure 14, sectional view of Sadaie’s speaker system.
In the embodiment of Figure 14, sound path 42 is configured from
pressure absorbing material in the shaded areas of sections 31 and 32. Ex.
1003, 11. Sadaie explains that the pressure absorbing material “does not
require sound absorbency but may have sound absorbency.” PO Resp. 50
(citing Ex. 1003, 12–13); Pet. Reply 14. Sadaie uses pressure absorbing
material to “mitigate overpressure . . . during large input” to obtain a “fast
bass response.” PO Resp. 50 (citing Ex. 1003, 12; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 108, 124).
Sadaie uses sound absorbency to absorb high frequency wind noise created
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

27

by the high pressure in the sound duct. Id. at 51–52 (citing Ex. 1003, 2, 12–
13; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 107, 130). Sadaie teaches that the pressure/sound absorbing
material may be placed along the side walls but not the top and bottom of the
sound duct, and the sound absorbing material on the sides was known “to
further suppress standing waves inside a duct.” Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1002
¶ 112). Petitioner, relying on Dr. Vipperman’s Second Declaration, explains
that “Sadaie distinguishes the side walls (intermediate section) from the top
and bottom walls, and recites that damping material is placed on the side
walls.” Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 22–26; Ex. 1003, 12–13).9
d. Analysis 
Tomonori discloses sound damping material that fulfills the same
function disclosed and claimed in the ’483 patent (Ex. 1004, 1:57–2:8,
3:6-12, 8:14-25), even though it does not form the sides of the sound duct.
Ex. 1002 ¶ 109. Petitioner’s evidence establishes the use of sound damping
material along the sides of a sound duct as a known configuration to

9 Patent Owner’s Response asserts that Sadaie teaches placement of sound
damping material “on any or all sides of the duct without limitation to the
sidewalls,” but does not teach selective placement of pressure/sound
damping material along the side walls, while avoiding placement of sound
damping material on the bottom and top surfaces of the sound duct. PO
Resp. 55–56. During the oral hearing, however, counsel for Petitioner
explained Dr. Vipperman’s testimony, that Sadaie teaches the placement of
pressure/sound damping material on the sidewalls of the duct and not
necessarily on the top and bottom surfaces. Tr. 11:14–13:9, 14:6–12.
Counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged the point. Tr. 35:1–13 (JUDGE
MURPHY: “It could be one side. It could be two sides. It could be all
sides. It’s not only all sides, right?” MR. KELLEY: “It is not only all sides,
you’re correct.”).
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

28

suppress standing waves inside a duct. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112). Dr.
Vipperman identifies the reason for Sadaie’s use of side wall sound damping
as enabling “the sharpness of a fundamental wave resonance of a standing
wave determined by the length of the sound path . . . to be suppressed
because a substantial length of the sound path cannot be primarily
determined.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 112 (citing Ex. 1003, 14). We agree with
Petitioner’s reasoning, therefore, that “[e]xtending the damping material of
Tomonori along the sidewalls of the duct,” as taught by Sadaie, would have
been one of a limited number of known solutions further minimizing the
presence of spurious resonances and standing waves inside the duct. Id. at
45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 113).
The quoted statements of Petitioner and Dr. Vipperman with respect
to Tomonori and Sadaie are consistent with the principles set forth in KSR.10
Petitioner and Dr. Vipperman provide an analysis of why one of ordinary
skill in the art of speaker design would have been motivated by Sadaie’s
disclosure of side wall sound damping to modify Tomonori’s narrow sound
duct, such that sound damping material forms the sides of the sound duct but
not the bottom (sound reflecting) surface. In particular, Dr. Vipperman’s
Declaration provides a sufficient analysis to support the obvious
modification of Tomonori’s narrow profile speaker, by a speaker designer of
ordinary skill, such that “sound damping material form[s] sides of the sound
duct” to help suppress the presence of spurious resonances and standing
waves inside the duct. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112, 113.

10 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (“KSR”).
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

29

As noted in KSR, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same
reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Patent Owner
does not contend that Sadaie’s selective side wall sound damping technique
would have been beyond the skill level of an ordinarily skilled speaker
designer at the time of the ’483 patent priority filing date. See PO
Response 52–56. We find the quoted passage from KSR particularly
applicable to the facts of the present case with respect to the combination of
Tomonori and Sadaie.
Patent Owner acknowledges that Tomonori teaches the use of sound
damping material to form the back wall of a narrow sound duct, which will
absorb “sound waves returning upon reflection at the open end of the sound
tube . . . whereby the resonance of standing waves is inhibited.” PO
Resp. 35 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:19–25, Fig. 17; Ex. 2007 ¶ 118); see also
Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:14–25, Figs. 16, 17; Ex. 1002 ¶ 109); Pet.
Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1016, 104:13–16). Although Tomonori does not
acknowledge that there are lateral and vertical resonances in the sound
output of Tomonori’s Figure 16 embodiment (PO Resp. 35 (citing Ex. 2007
¶ 118)), the desire to damp lateral resonances need not be the only reason
why one of ordinary skill would use side wall sound damping in a sound
duct. “In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

30

patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim.” KSR,
550 U.S. at 419. Patent Owner’s argument, that Sadaie uses side wall sound
damping to suppress higher frequency wind noise but not the lower
frequency sound that Sadaie’s bandpass-type enclosure was designed to
produce, fails to consider the objective reach of the claim. Pet. Reply 15;
Pet. Resp. to PO Observ. No. 3, 2 (“[Patent Owner’s] Observation is based
on the assumption that the challenged claims require absorption at specific
frequencies and absorption of lateral resonances. They do not.” (citation
omitted)). In sum, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the
claims are not so limited as Patent Owner’s argument would require. See,
e.g., Pet. Reply 4 (noting the ’483 patent “never discusses” Patent Owner’s
asserted innovation of a duct having a vertical dimension small enough to
eliminate vertical resonances without sound damping and also suppress
lateral resonances by minimizing the area of side wall sound damping); Tr.
82–83 (JUDGE MURPHY: “The sound damping material that is used to
form the sidewalls, what standing waves or resonances would that suppress
or mitigate? MR. CAVANAUGH: “I think if the claim is the guide, which it
has to be, then it has to eliminate standing waves. The claim doesn’t
specifically say particular standing waves.”).
We take a different view of Petitioner’s asserted combination of
Tomonori and Virva.
Virva’s labyrinth-type speaker is designed to generate, rather than
suppress, a low-frequency resonance (standing wave) to improve the
speaker’s low-end frequency response. PO Resp. 41; see Ex. 1009, 4:2–14;
Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 32 (citing Ex. 2011, 76–77; Ex. 2013, 187), 121. In contrast,
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

31

“Tomonori aimed at the opposite goal, and took measures to prevent end-to-
end [longitudinal] resonance across the length of the duct that Virva enables
and relies upon.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 2:51–3:5; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 111, 112, 115,
121, 122). Virva’s teaching, to line all inside surfaces of a labyrinth-type
enclosure with sound damping material, does not teach one of ordinary skill
to use sound damping material selectively to form sides of a narrow sound
duct, while avoiding the use of sound damping material on at least the
bottom (sound reflecting) surface. Id. at 43–45 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 127–
129). Virva also shows a speaker system configured such that each speaker
faces open space, rather than facing a substantially parallel sound reflecting
surface as recited in claim 1, which means the recited “forward radiation” of
the speaker output is not directed into a narrow sound duct terminating in an
elongate output slot. Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 129; Ex. 1009, Fig. 1). The
aforementioned differences between claim 1 of the ’483 patent, Tomonori,
and Virva are not addressed persuasively by Petitioner either in the Petition
or in Petitioner’s Reply.
In summary, we conclude Petitioner has satisfied its burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the
art of speaker design would have been motivated by the combination of
Tomonori and Sadaie to provide Tomonori’s narrow sound duct with “sound
damping material forming sides of the sound duct,” as recited in claim 1 of
the ’483 patent. We further conclude Petitioner has not satisfied its burden
of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in
the art of speaker design would have been motivated by the combination of
Tomonori and Virva to provide Tomonori’s narrow sound duct with “sound
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

32

damping material forming sides of the sound duct,” as recited in claim 1 of
the ’483 patent.
4.  Asserted Obviousness of Claim 2 
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein sound emanating
from the output slot is characterized by a wide horizontal dispersion angle
and a narrow vertical dispersion angle as a result of the elongate shape of the
output slot.” Ex. 1001, 30:14–18. We agree with Petitioner that Tomonori
discloses an elongate output slot and emits sound characterized by a wide
horizontal dispersion angle and a narrow vertical dispersion angle as a result
of the elongate output slot. Pet. 44–46 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:12–18, 6:48–7:7,
Figs. 1, 9, 10, 16; Ex. 1002 ¶ 114). Patent Owner does not address claim 2
separately from claim 1. We conclude Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of evidence that the combination of Tomonori and Sadai
would have rendered claim 2 obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
5. Asserted Obviousness of Claim 3 
Claim 3 of the ’483 patent recites “wherein said sound damping
material forms a back wall of the sound duct, said back wall substantially
following a curved contour of a portion of a drive unit cone farthest
opposite from the output slot.” Ex. 1001, 30:20–23 (emphasis added). The
’483 patent illustrates various embodiments of claim 3 in Figures 3A-C.
Figure 3C is representative and reproduced below.
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

33

Figure 3C, sectional top view showing sound damping material
forming back wall and following curved contour of speaker
cone.
Figure 3C, above, depicts “sound damping material 359 follows along
sidewalls [344], [345] to the edge of the output slot 346 and . . . is contoured
to circumscribe the periphery of the cone of speaker [347].” Ex. 1001, 8:61–
66. The line-shaded area of sound damping material follows the curved
contour portion of speaker cone 347 farthest away from output slot 346, to
form the recited back wall of the sound duct.
Petitioner states that Tomonori’s Figure 16 illustrates sound damping
material packed into the closed end of the sound duct and forming a back
wall of the sound duct. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:14–18, Fig. 16; Ex. 1002
¶ 115). Tomonori’s sound damping material, however, is not depicted or
described as following a curved contour of a portion of the speaker cone
farthest opposite the output slot, as recited in claim 3 of the ’483 patent. Id.;
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

34

see Ex. 1004, Figs. 9, 16.11 Petitioner argues that it would have been
obvious for one skilled in the art to contour the sound damping material in
Tomonori’s sound duct to follow the curved rear edge of the speaker cone
opposite the output slot (Pet. 46–47 (citing Sadaie, Ex. 1003, 3, 5, 9–15,
Figs. 4, 12–18)), because straight and curved back walls “have both been
commonly used in loudspeaker design with predictable results.” Id. at 47
(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116, 117).
We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner and Dr. Vipperman have
not identified any examples in the prior art of sound damping material
forming a back wall of a sound duct that follows a curved contour of a
speaker cone. PO Resp. 58. Tomonori, Virva, and Sadaie do not depict,
suggest, or teach sound damping material forming a curved back wall of the
sound duct by “following a curved contour of a portion of a drive unit cone
farthest opposite from the output slot,” as recited in claim 3 of the ’483
patent.12 Figure 18 of Sadaie is representative and reproduced below.

11 Virva also does not show sound damping material following a curved
contour of a speaker cone to form the back wall of a sound duct.
12 Petitioner and Dr. Vipperman cite Figure 4 of Sadaie, which shows a
circular peripheral outer edge of Sadaie’s sound guide, but sound damping
material is not described or shown to form the back wall of Sadaie’s sound
guide in Figure 4 or in any other figure of Sadaie. See Ex. 1003. Figs. 1–18.
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

35

Sadaie Figure 18, sectional view showing sound damping material.
The gray and black shaded areas of sections 31 and 32 depict
pressure/sound damping material forming sidewalls of Sadaie’s sound duct.
Ex. 1003, 11–13. The sound damping material does not follow the curved
portion of circular speaker cone 21 that is “farthest opposite from the output
slot [45]” to form a back wall of the sound duct. PO Resp. 58. Dr.
Vipperman relies on Sadaie’s disclosure of a preferred embodiment where
the “sound guiding part [40] has a sound source space [41] defined
according to a peripheral edge portion of the above speaker unit,” in support
of his obvious-to-combine rationale. Ex. 1002 ¶ 116 (citing Ex. 1003, 3, 5,
9–15, Figs. 4, 12–18). Dr. Vipperman, however, does not explain why one
of ordinary skill in the art would use the quoted teaching from Sadaie to
modify the shape of the sound damping material in Tomonori’s sound duct
IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

36

to form the back wall of the sound duct by following the curved contour of a
portion of the speaker cone, as recited in claim 3 of the ’483 patent. See Pet.
46, 47 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 116–17). Petitioner’s argument otherwise is
unsupported in terms of presenting evidence of a reason for a speaker
designer of ordinary skill to combine the cited references to achieve a
narrow profile speaker with the limitations recited in claim 3. Therefore, we
determine Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
there was sufficient motivation or reason for one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify Tomonori in view of Virva and Sadaie to satisfy the limitations of
claim 3 of the ’483 patent.
For the reasons given above, we conclude Petitioner has not shown by
a preponderance of evidence that Tomonori, Virva, and Sadaie would have
rendered claim 3 obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the ’483 patent priority application.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has established by
a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 2 of the ’483 patent are
unpatentable as obvious over Tomonori and Sadaie under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We further determine Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of
the evidence that claim 3 of the ’483 patent is unpatentable as obvious over
Tomonori, Virva, and Sadaie under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

IPR2014-00235
Patent 7,433,483 B2

37

IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that claims 1 and 2 of the ’483 patent have been shown by
a preponderance of the evidence to be unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that claim 3 of the ’483 patent has not been
shown by a preponderance of the evidence to be unpatentable.
This is a final written decision. Parties to the proceeding seeking
judicial review of the decision must comply with the notice and service
requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

FOR PETITIONER:
David L. Cavanaugh, Lead Counsel
Natalie Pous, Backup Counsel
Nina S. Tallon, Backup Counsel
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
natalie.pous@wilmerhale.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:

Christopher L. Kelley, Lead Counsel
Eric L. Wesenberg, Backup Counsel
Kenneth J. Halpern, Backup Counsel
Wing H. Liang, Backup Counsel
PERKINS COIE LLP
ckelley@perkinscoie.com
ewesenberg@perkinscoie.com
khalpern@perkinscoie.com
wliang@perkinscoie.com
THX-IPR@perkinscoie.com