UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-626
`
`RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSES TO BOSE CORPORATION’S OBJECTIONS TO
`RESPONDENTS’ CORRECTED AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMBINED TRIAL
`EXHBIITS
`
`Pursuant to Order No. 12, Respondents Phitek Systems Limited, Creative Labs, Inc.,
`
`Audio-Technica U.S., Inc., and Panasonic of North America (collectively “the Respondents”)
`
`hereby submit their Responses to Bose Corporation’s (“Bose”) Objections to Respondents’
`
`Corrected and Supplemental Combined Exhibit List for trial. To avoid unnecessary repetition,
`
`Respondents’ responses are represented by the codes attached hereto as Exhibit A. The codes
`
`that appear in the table attached hereto as Exhibit B, under the “Response” column correspond to
`
`the responses defined in Exhibit A. Furthermore, Respondents note that all of Bose’s objections
`
`are vague to the extent that they do not provide a supporting explanation for each objection and
`
`are therefore waived.
`
`Respondents reserve the right
`
`to supplement or amend their responses to Bose’s
`
`objections.
`
`Dated: October 22, 2008
`
`5324003v.1 128214/00004
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`
`
`/s/ William B. Nash
`William B. Nash
`Daniel Chapman
`Mark A. J. Fassold
`JACKSON WALKER LLP
`112 E. Pecan, Suite 2400
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`San Antonio, Texas 78205
`(210) 978-7700
`(210) 242-4620
`
`Alan Cope Johnson
`G. Brian Busey
`Cynthia Beverage
`MORRISON & FOERSTER, L.L.P.
`2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`ATTORNEYS FOR PHITEK SYSTEMS LIMITED
`
`/s/ Daniel S. Ebenstien
`Daniel S. Ebenstien
`Abraham Kasdan
`Joseph M. Casino
`David A. Boag
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`(212) 336-8000
`
`Tom M. Schaumberg
`Jamie D. Underwood
`ADDUCI MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG
`LLP
`1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Fifth Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`ATTORNEYS FOR PANASONIC CORPORATION
`OF NORTH AMERICA
`
`/s/ James P. White
`James P. White
`J. Aron Carnanhan
`HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS, LLP
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22nd Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`(312) 665-1500
`ATTORNEYS FOR AUDIO-TECHNICA U.S.
`
`5324003v.1 128214/00004
`
`2
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`that a copy of RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSES TO BOSE
`I hereby certify
`CORPORATION’S
`OBJECTION
`TO
`RESPONDENTS’
`CORRECTED
`AND
`SUPPLEMENTAL COMBINED EXHIBIT LIST has been served on October 22, 2008, as
`indicated, on the following:
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via E-File
`
`Not Served
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Not Served
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Not Served
`
`Marilyn R. Abbott
`Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E. Street, S.W., Room 112A
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`The Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E. Street, S.W., Room 317
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`Christopher Paulraj
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E. Street, S.W. Room 401-F
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`5324003v.1 128214/00004
`
`3
`
`

`
`Andrew R. Kopsidas
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Attorneys for Complainant Bose Corporation
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`James P. White
`Gerald T. Shekleton
`J. Aron Carnahan
`HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS, LLP
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22nd Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`Attorneys for Respondent Audio Technica,
`U.S. Inc.
`
`Arthur Wineburg
`Daniel E. Yonan
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
`1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Attorneys for Respondent Audio Technica,
`U.S. Inc.
`
`Tom M. Schaumberg
`Jamie D. Underwood
`Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP
`1200 Seventeenth Floor, NW, Fifth Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Attorneys for Panasonic Corporation of North
`America
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`5324003v.1 128214/00004
`
`4
`
`

`
`Daniel Ebenstein
`Abraham Kasdan
`Joseph Casino
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`
`Attorneys for Panasonic Corporation of North
`America
`
`Alan Cope Johnston
`G. Brian Busey
`Cynthia Lopez Beverage
`MORRISON FOERSTER
`2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1888
`
`Attorneys for Phitek Systems Limited and
`Creative Labs, Inc.
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`/s/ William B. Nash
`William B. Nash
`
`_
`
`5324003v.1 128214/00004
`
`5
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`
`Exhibit
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`C
`
`D
`
`CODE
`A
`
`RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION
`Bose’s objection should be overruled because the document appears to be regular on its face and
`Bose has failed to show by particularized evidence that the document is a forgery or is not what it
`purports to be. See Bullock Ground Rule 9.4.12. Moreover, the exhibit may be authenticated by
`witness testimony or other evidence and/or Bose produced the exhibit.
`Bose’s objections should be overruled because (a) the evidence can be presented in a short amount
`of time, and (b) the evidence has probative value that is not “substantially” outweighed by other
`considerations all of which Bose has categorically failed to articulate in making its objection. To the
`extent the Commission sustains said objection, Respondents’ request leaves to make an offer of
`proof and/or modify the offer once Bose articulates that portion of the offer that offends Federal
`Rule of Evidence 403.
`Bose’s objection should be overruled because (a) Bose is mistaken in that the document was
`disclosed during discovery, (b) the late disclose was substantially justified given the late discovery
`of the evidence by Respondents, and/or (c) the allegedly late disclosure, if any, was harmless given
`that the document was disclosed to Bose no later than June 30, 2008 (i.e., over five months before
`trial) and Bose has requested no additional timely discovery related to the document indicating a
`lack of prejudice.
`Bose’s objection should be overruled because Bose has failed to: (a) identify any missing
`foundational element, and/or (b) identify any evidence supporting the proposition that the witness
`lacks personal knowledge (to the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the witness has personal
`knowledge about that which he testifies). Until Bose makes such showing, Respondents are unable
`to fully respond to Bose’s objection.
`GR10.5.6 Bose’s objection should be overruled because (a) the opinion is simply an elaboration of an opinion
`that was disclosed, (b) the opinion is responsive to new evidence introduced by Bose which could
`not have been anticipated, (c) the opinion has already been allowed pursuant to order entered by
`Judge Bullock, (d) the opinion is admissible testimony by an expert, see Fed. R. Evid. 702, (e) the
`testimony constitutes the admissible basis of opinion testimony by an expert, see Fed. R. Evid. 703
`(facts or data upon which an expert bases his opinion or inference may be presented to the fact-
`finder), (f) the testimony constitutes the admissible disclosure of facts or data underlying an expert
`opinion, see Fed. R. Evid. 705 (“The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give
`reasons therefore without first testifying to underlying facts or data, unless the court requires
`otherwise), and/or (g) the testimony is a factual statement based on the witness’s personal
`knowledge and/or understanding. To the extent it is deemed an opinion, it is a permissible lay
`opinion. See Fed. R. Evid. 701.
`Bose’s objection should be overruled because (a) the opinion is simply an elaboration of an opinion
`that was disclosed, (b) the opinion is responsive to new evidence introduced by Bose which could
`not have been anticipated, (c) the opinion has already been allowed pursuant to order entered by
`Judge Bullock, (d) the opinion is admissible testimony by an expert, see Fed. R. Evid. 702, (e) the
`testimony constitutes the admissible basis of opinion testimony by an expert, see Fed. R. Evid. 703
`(facts or data upon which an expert bases his opinion or inference may be presented to the fact-
`finder), (f) the testimony constitutes the admissible disclosure of facts or data underlying an expert
`opinion, see Fed. R. Evid. 705 (“The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give
`reasons therefore without first testifying to underlying facts or data, unless the court requires
`otherwise), and/or (g) the testimony is a factual statement based on the witness’s personal
`knowledge and/or understanding. To the extent it is deemed an opinion, it is a permissible lay
`opinion. See Fed. R. Evid. 701.
`
`F
`
`GR6
`
`5324200v.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`(l)
`
`RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION
`Bose’s objections should be overruled for any one of the following reasons:
`The hearsay objection is not applicable to Commission proceedings, see Commission Rule
`(a)
`210.37, which provides that, in a section 337 Investigation, evidence that is “relevant,
`material and reliable” is admissible.
`The evidence appears reliable and the Commission has held hearsay to be admissible “if it
`appears reliable” and if the nature of the information and the state of the particular record
`makes it useful, In re Certain Reclosable Plastic Bags, ITC Inv. 337-TA_22, Comm’n
`Memorandum Opinion at 13 (1977).
`The evidence is an in court statement given that the evidence has been incorporated by
`reference into a witness statement.
`The exhibit is not hearsay to the extent it is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter
`asserted. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`The exhibit is not hearsay to the extent it is not a statement. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(a); United
`States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 984 (1980)
`(“Photographs are admissible as substantive as well as illustrative evidence.”) Writings are
`not assertions if they simply provide “circumstantial evidence of origin.” See United States
`v. Snow, 517 F2d 411, 443-44 (9th Cir. 1974) (tape attached to a briefcase, bearing
`defendant’s name, was circumstantial evidence of ownership that did not implicate hearsay
`rule).
`Party admissions reflected by or contained in the exhibit are not hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid.
`801(d)(2).
`The public record or report exception to the hearsay rule is applicable. See Fed. R. Evid.
`803(8).
`The business record exception to the hearsay rule is applicable. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).
`The “former testimony” exception to the hearsay rule is applicable. See Fed. R. Evid.
`804(b)(1).
`The “recorded recollection” exception to the hearsay rule is applicable. See Fed. R. Evid.
`803(5).
`The learned treatise exception to the hearsay rule is applicable. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(18).
`The market report and/or commercial publication exception to the hearsay rule is applicable.
`See Fed. R. Evid. 803(17).
`The residual exception to the hearsay rule is applicable. See Fed. R. Evid. 807 (exception for
`statements having circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness).
`Bose’s objection should be overruled because it has failed to demonstrate how the omitted portions
`of the document “ought in fairness to be considered.” In the alternative, Respondents will produce
`the complete document should they be ordered to do so.
`Bose’s objections should be overruled because Bose has proven that the document is indeed legible
`as demonstrated, for example, by Bose’s ability to deem the document “confusing, cumulative, [a]
`waste of time, [and/or] unduly prejudicial.” That is, Bose’s other objections to the document betray
`Bose’s “illegibility” objection. Should the Commission determine the document is illegible,
`Respondents will produce a more legible copy.
`
`CODE
`H
`
`I
`
`ILL
`
`(m)
`
`5324200v.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`CODE
`L
`
`LC
`
`M
`
`MIL
`NII
`
`NT
`
`O
`
`P
`
`RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION
`Bose’s objection should be overruled because (a) the suggestion is harmless compared to the waste
`of time inherent in developing the testimony without leading questions, (b) the question develops
`preliminary matters not in dispute, see Fed. R. Evid. 611(c), (c) the suggestion ensures that a
`witness’s testimony does not include inadmissible testimony or stays within the limits of a court’s
`ruling limiting the extent of the witness’s testimony, see Fed. R. Evid. 611 (a), (c) and/or (d) the
`question is not a leading question in that the question does not sufficiently suggestion the answer to
`the question.
`Bose’s objection should be overruled because (a) the testimony does not constitute a legal
`conclusion, and/or (b) testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not
`objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. See Fed. R.
`Evid. 704(a).
`Bose’s objection should be overruled because (a) the testimony is not misleading, (b) the testimony
`does not mischaracterize prior testimony, and/or (c) Bose has failed to state how the testimony is
`misleading and/or how the testimony mischaracterizes prior testimony.
`See respective response to said motion in limine.
`Bose’s objection should be overruled because Order No. 17, has made the testimony part of the
`investigation.
`Bose’s objection should be overruled because (a) the opinion is simply an elaboration of an opinion
`that was disclosed, (b) the opinion is responsive to new evidence introduced by Bose which could
`not have been anticipated, (c) the opinion has already been allowed pursuant to order entered by
`Judge Bullock, (d) the opinion is admissible testimony by an expert, see Fed. R. Evid. 702, (e) the
`testimony constitutes the admissible basis of opinion testimony by an expert, see Fed. R. Evid. 703
`(facts or data upon which an expert bases his opinion or inference may be presented to the fact-
`finder), (f) the testimony constitutes the admissible disclosure of facts or data underlying an expert
`opinion, see Fed. R. Evid. 705 (“The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give
`reasons therefore without first testifying to underlying facts or data, unless the court requires
`otherwise), and/or (g) the testimony is a factual statement based on the witness’s personal
`knowledge and/or understanding. To the extent it is deemed an opinion, it is a permissible lay
`opinion. See Fed. R. Evid. 701.
`Bose’s objection should be overruled because (a) the opinion is simply an elaboration of an opinion
`that was disclosed, (b) the opinion is responsive to new evidence introduced by Bose which could
`not have been anticipated, (c) the opinion has already been allowed pursuant to order entered by
`Judge Bullock, (d) the opinion is admissible testimony by an expert, see Fed. R. Evid. 702, (e) the
`testimony constitutes the admissible basis of opinion testimony by an expert, see Fed. R. Evid. 703
`(facts or data upon which an expert bases his opinion or inference may be presented to the fact-
`finder), (f) the testimony constitutes the admissible disclosure of facts or data underlying an expert
`opinion, see Fed. R. Evid. 705 (“The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give
`reasons therefore without first testifying to underlying facts or data, unless the court requires
`otherwise), and/or (g) the testimony is a factual statement based on the witness’s personal
`knowledge and/or understanding. To the extent it is deemed an opinion, it is a permissible lay
`opinion. See Fed. R. Evid. 701.
`Bose’s “preservation” should be overruled given its failure to timely articulate its objection.
`
`5324200v.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`CODE
`R
`
`S
`
`RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION
`Bose’s objection should be overruled because (a) Bose has made numerous unfounded objections
`based on relevance and therefore Bose should be found to have waived said objection, and (b) the
`exhibit/testimony “has a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
`determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence”
`and, therefore, is relevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. The evidence is relevant, material, and reliable
`and therefore must be admitted. See Commission Rule 210.37.
`Bose’s objection should be overruled because Bose has failed to state how the evidence constitutes
`speculation (e.g., Bose has failed to establish how the evidence lacks a foundational element that
`renders the evidence speculative) and because the evidence does not constitute speculation.
`
`5324200v.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`
`Exhibit
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`Description/Title
`
`Responses to Bose's Objections
`
`RX - 1
`
`Declaration for Patent Application; (Breen Ex. 3)
`
`F
`
`RX - 2
`
`RX - 3
`
`Declaration for Patent Application; (Sapiejewski Ex. 14);
`(BOSITC000029)
`
`Letter to US Patent Office from Chuck Hieken filing
`Amendment B, June 6, 1991; (Sapiejewski Ex. 15);
`(BOSITC000073)
`
`RX - 4
`
`Request for Certificate of Correction of Office Mistake;
`(Sapiejewski Ex. 16); (BOSITC000155 - BOSITC000159)
`
`A, R, C, MIL
`
`RX - 5
`
`792 Patent Re-issue Filings; (PHI0062761 - PHI0062820)
`
`R, C, MIL
`
`RX - 6
`
`[Reissue Patent Application Transmittal. Original Patent No.:
`6,597,792 B1]; (BOSITC001186 - BOSTIC001416)
`
`RX - 7
`
`RX - 8C
`
`Charles Hieken, Response to USPTO Office Action; (Ex. B to
`Phitek’s Rebuttal Expert Report); (BOSITC000129-
`BOSITC000144)
`
`US Patent 4,027,117; (Ex. A to Winker’s Initial Expert
`Report); (Monahan Ex. 9); (Ex. A to Phitek’s Rebuttal
`Expert Report); (BOSTIC521012-BOSITC521015)
`
`RX - 9
`
`Photographs of Aviation Headsets Series 1; (Monahan Ex.
`12); (Bose Production Item #8, 13)
`
`RX - 10
`
`Photographs of Aviation Headsets X; (Monahan Ex. 13);
`(Bose Production Item #4)
`
`RX - 11
`
`Photographs of QC1 / Jet Set 1; (Monahan Ex. 14); (Bose
`Production Item #12)
`
`RX - 12
`
`Photographs of Aviation Headset X; (Monahan Ex. 15);
`(Bose Production Item 11)
`
`RX - 13
`
`Photographs of Triport Tactical Headsets; (Monahan Ex. 16);
`(Bose Production Item #3)
`
`RX - 14
`
`US Patent 4,399,334; (Ex. B to Winker’s Initial Expert
`Report); (Breen Ex. 4); (AT00132752-AT00132756)
`
`C
`
`F, C, R, SW
`
`F, C, R, SW
`
`F, C, R, SW
`
`F, C, R, SW
`
`F, C, R, SW
`
`A
`
`A
`
`US Patent 4,714,134; Ex. B to Winker’s Initial Expert
`Report); (Sapiejewski Ex. 6); (Sapiewjewski Ex. 7);
`(AT00132526-AT00132532)
`
`RX - 15
`
`RX - 16
`
`Document from EPO website, High Compliance Headphone
`driving, EPO414479, Publication Date, Feb. 27, 1991;
`(Sapiejewski Ex. 17); (Gauger Ex. 12)
`
`A, C, R, MIL
`
`

`
`Description/Title
`
`Responses to Bose's Objections
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`RX - 17
`
`Exhibit D1 to European Patent Office Decision; (Martin Ex.
`5); (BOSITC001728-BOSITC001742)
`
`RX - 18
`
`US Patent 4,572,324; (Ex. A, to Winker’s Initial Expert
`Report); (AT00132846-AT00132852)
`
`RX - 19
`
`Borwick, Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook Third
`Edition, Focal Press, Sections 14.2.7 and 14.2.8; (Ex. A, to
`Winker’s Initial Expert Report); (PHI0062918-PHI0062920)
`
`RX - 20
`
`Borwick, Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook Third
`Edition, Focal Press, Sections 14.2.3 and Fig. 14.8 and page
`605; (Ex. A, to Winker’s Initial Expert Report); PHI0062921-
`PHI0062926)
`
`RX - 21
`
`Noise and Vibration Control Engineering, Second Edition
`(John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2006) page 216, 231-32, 235-39;
`(Ex. A, to Winker’s Initial Expert Report); (PHI0062927-
`PHI0062934)
`
`RX - 22
`
`Handbook for Sound Engineers, Second Edition (Macmillan
`Computer Publishing, Copyright 1987 and 1991), page 119;
`(Ex. A, to Winker’s Initial Expert Report); (PHI0062941-
`0062942)
`
`RX - 23
`
`US Patent 6,831,984; (Ex. A, to Winker’s Initial Expert
`Report); (AT00133258-00133269)
`
`RX - 24
`
`US Patent 4,809,811; (Ex. A, to Winker’s Initial Expert
`Report); (AT00132930-00132938);
`
`RX - 25C
`
`Beranenk, Acoustics, (Acoustical Society of America, 1996);
`(Ex. B, to Winker’s Initial Expert Report); (PHI0062999-
`0063003)
`
`RX - 26
`
`US Patent 4,041,256; (Ex. B, to Winker’s Initial Expert
`Report); (AT00132679-00132685)
`
`RX - 27
`
`US Patent 4,297,537; (Ex. B, to Winker’s Initial Expert
`Report); (AT00132726-00132731)
`
`RX - 28
`
`US Patent 1,807,225; (Ex. B, to Winker’s Initial Expert
`Report); (BOSITC289897-289900)
`
`RX - 29C
`
`D’Appolito, Testing Loudspeakers (Audio Amateur
`Publications 1998), Chapter 2, page 16; (Ex. B, to Winker’s
`Initial Expert Report); (PHI0062997-0062998)
`
`RX - 30
`
`US Patent 4,058,688; (Ex. A to Phitek’s Rebuttal Expert
`Report); (BOSITC289774-289784)
`
`C, R, MIL
`
`A, R, C, MIL
`
`ILL
`
`ILL
`
`C, R, ILL, H
`
`C, R, ILL, H
`
`A, R
`
`A, R
`
`ILL
`
`A, R
`
`A, R
`
`ILL, I
`
`R
`
`

`
`Description/Title
`
`Responses to Bose's Objections
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`RX - 31
`
`US Patent 4,742,887; (Ex. B to Phitek’s Rebuttal Expert
`Report); (AT00132908-00132918)
`
`RX - 32
`
`D’Appolito, Testing Loudspeakers, Ch. 3; (Ex. B to Phitek’s
`Rebuttal Expert Report); (PHI0062972-0062984)
`
`RX - 33
`
`Allan D. Pierce, Acoustics (excerpt); (Ex. B to Phitek’s
`Rebuttal Expert Report); (PHI0062985-0062991); (Begault
`Ex. 19)
`
`A, R
`
`ILL, I
`
`A, ILL, I
`
`RX - 34
`
`Photo’s of Voyager Prototype; (Begault Ex. 3)
`
`A, F, C, R, SW
`
`RX - 35C
`
`UK Patent Application – Application published 23 Sep 1987;
`(BOSITC520970-520980)
`
`RX - 36C
`
`U.S. Patent 2,775,309; (BOSITC521006-521011)
`
`RX - 37C
`
`U.S. Patent 4,985,925; (BOSITC521054-521066)
`
`RX - 38C
`
`U.S. Patent 5,937,070; (BOSITC521105-521127)
`
`R
`
`R
`
`R
`
`R
`
`RX - 39
`
`EPO Documents; (PHI0062821-0062880)
`
`A, C, F, I, R, SW
`
`RX - 40
`
`Loudspeaker and headphone Handbook, Borwick, 1988;
`(AT00008740-00008843)
`
`RX - 41
`
`ANVT NQ100 Auction Documentation; (AT133717-133723)
`
`A, D, F, C, R, H, ILL, SW
`
`RX - 42C
`
`ATH-910PRO design document; (AT133701)
`
`RX - 43C
`
`ATH-910 Design Document; (AT133702)
`
`RX - 44C
`
`RX - 45C
`
`RX - 46
`
`ATH-910PRO design document (english translation);
`(AT133704)
`ATH-910 Design Document (english translation);
`(AT133705)
`US Patent 4,005,267; (Ex. A to Winker’s Initial Expert
`Report); (Monahan Ex. 8); (Ex. A to Phitek’s Rebuttal
`Expert Report); (BOSITC002019-002028)
`
`A, F, C, R, H, ILL, SW
`
`A, F, C, R, H, ILL, SW
`
`A, F, C, R, H, ILL, SW
`
`A, F, C, R, H, ILL, SW
`
`RX - 47
`
`Alfred DiMattia, A Practical Ear Enclosure with Selectively
`Coupled Volume, 15 The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
`America, No. 3, (July, 1967), Page(s) 295-298.;
`(AT00133358 - AT00133361)
`
`RX - 48
`
`Alfred DiMattia, A Practical Ear Enclosure with Selectively
`Coupled Volume, AES Paper Number 460, AES Convention
`31 (October, 1966), Page(s) 1-12.; (AT00133362 -
`AT00133373)
`
`C, R, H
`
`C, R, H
`
`RX - 49
`
`Article AES, 1972, Page(s) 271-282.
`
`A, F, C, R, H, I
`
`

`
`Description/Title
`
`Responses to Bose's Objections
`
`Beranek, Noise and Vibration Control, Chapter 10, Page(s)
`245 thru 269.
`
`A, F, C, R, ILL, H, I
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`RX - 50
`
`RX - 51
`
`RX - 52
`
`RX - 53
`
`RX - 54
`
`Carl Poldy, The Electrical Equivalent Circuit of Porous
`Complaint Membranes and Related Systems, AES Paper
`1957 (D2) , AES Convention 73 (March, 1983) Page(s) 1-
`15.; (AT00133530 - AT00133544)
`
`CN1213626, April 7, 1999, China; (AT00133318 -
`AT00133318)
`DE – Patent No. 3512405 A1, October 31, 1985, Bose;
`(AT00133326 - AT00133357)
`
`E.A.G. Shaw & G.J. Thiessen, Acoutstics of Circumural
`Earphones, 34 The Journal of The Acoustical Society of
`America, No. 9, Sept. 1962.; (AT00133500 - AT00133513)
`
`RX - 55
`
`EP 0414479B1, September 27, 1995, Bose Corporation;
`(AT00133380 - AT00133385)
`
`RX - 56
`
`EP 0688143A2, (Bose), December 20, 1995
`
`RX - 57
`
`European – Patent No. EP 0195 641 B1, September 24,
`1986, Twiney; (AT00133374 - AT00133379)
`
`RX - 58
`
`France – Patent No. FR 2 595 178 A1, September 4,1987,
`Yamagishi; (AT00133421 - AT00133442)
`
`RX - 59
`
`GB – Patent No. 2 172 470 A, September 19, 1986, Twiney;
`(AT00133461 - AT00133464)
`
`RX - 60
`
`RX - 61
`
`GB 1 379 372 A, January 2, 1975; (AT00133491 -
`AT00133499)
`GB 2 000 941 A (Matsushita), January 17, 1979;
`(AT00133443 - AT00133453)
`
`RX - 62
`
`Germany – Patent No. G 87 0 3084, November 12, 1987,
`Sony Corporation
`
`RX - 63
`
`RX - 64
`
`RX - 65
`
`Germany – Patent No. GB 37 06 481 C2, September 3,
`1987, Yamagishi
`JP 04 227396 A (Sony), August 17, 1992; (AT00133514 -
`AT00133519)
`Naraji Sakamoto, Linear-Drive Headphones with Eardrum
`Response, AES paper 1341, AES Convention 60 (May,
`1978), Page(s) 1-32.; (AT00133545 - AT00133576)
`
`RX - 66
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 1,368,307, February 15, 1921, Waldron;
`(AT00132482 - AT00132484)
`
`RX - 67
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 1,498,727, June 24, 1924, Haskel
`(PHI0001094 - PHI001096)
`
`C, R, H
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R, ILL
`
`C, R, H, ILL
`
`A, C, R
`
`C, R, H, L
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R, ILL
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R, ILL
`
`A, C, R, ILL
`
`A, C, R, ILL
`
`C, R, H
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`

`
`Description/Title
`
`Responses to Bose's Objections
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`RX - 68
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 1,514,152, November 4, 1924,
`Gernsback; (AT00132488 - AT00132490)
`
`RX - 69
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 2,346,395, April 11, 1944, Rettinger;
`(AT00132499 - AT00132501)
`
`RX - 70
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 2,490,466, December 6, 1949, Olson,
`Princeton & Preston; (AT00132510 - AT00132517)
`
`RX - 71
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 2,622,159, December 16, 1952, Herman;
`(AT00132523 - AT00132525)
`
`RX - 72
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 2,761,912, September 4, 1956, Touger,
`Audubon & Kettler; (AT00132533 - AT00132537)
`
`RX - 73
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 2,848,560, August 19, 1958, Wiegand,
`Park and Ancell; (AT00132538 - AT00132541)
`
`RX - 74
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 2,972,018, 1961, Hawley
`
`RX - 75
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 2002/0015501 A1, July 2, 2002,
`Sapiejewski; (AT00132545 - AT00132556)
`
`RX - 76
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 3,367,040, February, 1968, Vani;
`(AT00132581 - AT00132588)
`
`RX - 77
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 3,403,235, September 24, 1968, Bishop;
`(AT00132589 - AT00132597)
`
`RX - 78
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 3,532,837 A, October 6, 1970, Dyar et
`al.; (AT00132598 - AT00132602)
`
`RX - 79
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 3,602,329A, August 31, 1971, Bauer et
`al.; (AT00132603 - AT00132610)
`
`RX - 80
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 3,644,939, February 29, 1972, Beguin;
`(AT00132611 - AT00132614)
`
`RX - 81
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 3,727,004, April 10, 1973, Bose;
`(AT00132615 - AT00132621)
`
`RX - 82
`
`RX - 83
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 3,766,332 A, October 16, 1973, Carlson
`et al.
`U.S. – Patent No. 3,927,262, December 16, 1975, Goeckel;
`(AT00132622 - AT00132630)
`
`RX - 84
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 3,997,739, December 14, 1976,
`Kishikawa, et al.; (AT00132638 - AT00132642)
`
`RX - 85
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,005,267, January 25, 1977, Görike et
`al.; (AT00132643 - AT00132652)
`
`RX - 86
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,005,278 A, January 25, 1977, Görike;
`(AT00132653 - AT00132670)
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`

`
`Description/Title
`
`Responses to Bose's Objections
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`RX - 87
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,156,118, May 22, 1979, Hargrave;
`(AT00132704 - AT00132707)
`
`RX - 88
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,158,753, June 19, 1979, Görike;
`(AT00132708 - AT00132714)
`
`RX - 89
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,211,898, July 8, 1980, Atoji et al.;
`(AT00132715 - AT00132725)
`
`RX - 90
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,338,489, July 6, 1982, Görike;
`(AT00132732 - AT00132740)
`
`RX - 91
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,347,405 A, August 31, 1982, Davis;
`(AT00132741 - AT00132751)
`
`RX - 92
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,418,248, November 29, 1983, Mathis;
`(AT00132770 - AT00132775)
`
`RX - 93
`
`U.S. - Patent No. 4,441,596, April 10, 1984, Nakahara et
`al.; (AT00132776 - AT00132782)
`
`RX - 94
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,494,074, January 15, 1985, Bose;
`(AT00132798 - AT00132811)
`
`RX - 95
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,528,689 A, July 9, 1985, Katz;
`(AT00132826 - AT00132836)
`
`RX - 96
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,529,058, July 16, 1985, Emery;
`(AT00132837 - AT00132845)
`
`RX - 97
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,592,366, June 3, 1986, Sainomoto et
`al.; (AT00132857 - AT00132875)
`
`RX - 98
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,646,872, March 3, 1987, Kamon et al.;
`(AT00132880 - AT00132886)
`
`RX - 99
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,669,129, June 2, 1987, Chance;
`(AT00132887 - AT00132891)
`
`RX - 100
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,670,733, June 2, 1987, Bell;
`(AT00132892 - AT00132907)
`
`RX - 101
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,847,908, July 11, 1989, Nieuwendijk et
`al.; (AT00132939 - AT00132947)
`
`RX - 102
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,852,177, July 25, 1989, Ambrose;
`(AT00132948 - AT00132956)
`
`RX - 103
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,893,695, January 16, 1990, Tamura et
`al.; (AT00132957 - AT00132968)
`
`RX - 104
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,949,806, August 21, 1990, Hofer;
`(AT00132975 - AT00132979)
`
`RX - 105
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 4,989,271, February 5, 1991,
`Sapiejewski, et al.; (AT00132993 - AT00132997)
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`

`
`Description/Title
`
`Responses to Bose's Objections
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`RX - 106
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 5,001,763, March 19, 1991, Moseley;
`(AT00132998 - AT00133011)
`
`RX - 107
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 5,020,163, June, 1991, Aileo et al.;
`(AT00133012 - AT00133019)
`
`RX - 108
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 5,117,461, May 26, 1992, Moseley;
`(AT00133020 - AT00133031)
`
`RX - 109
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 5,134,659, July 28, 1992, Moseley;
`(AT00133032 - AT00133044)
`
`RX - 110
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 5,267,321, November 30, 1993,
`Langberg; (AT00133066 - AT00133071)
`
`RX - 111
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 5,305,387, April 19, 1994, Sapiejewski;
`(AT00133072 - AT00133083)
`
`RX - 112
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 5,343,523, October 11, 1994, Kilgore et
`al.; (AT00133084 - AT00133115)
`
`RX - 113
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 5,497,426, March 5, 1996, Jay;
`(AT00133116 - AT00133124)
`
`RX - 114
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 5,504,281, April 2, 1996, Whitney et al.;
`(AT00133125 - AT00133142)
`
`RX - 115
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 5,652,799, July 29, 1997, Ross, Langley,
`Eatwell; (AT00133143 - AT00133155)
`
`RX - 116
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 5,675,658, October 7, 1997, Brittain;
`(AT00133156 - ATT00133162)
`
`RX - 117
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 5,740,257A, April 14, 1998, Marcus
`
`RX - 118
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 5,913,178, June, 1999, Olsson;
`(AT00133163 - AT00133170)
`
`RX - 119
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 5,970,160, October, 1999, Nilsson et al.;
`(AT00133171 - AT0013380)
`
`RX - 120
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 6,061,456, May 9, 2000, Andrea et al.;
`(AT00133181 - ATT00133232)
`
`RX - 121
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 6,163,615, December 19, 2000, Callahan;
`(AT00133233 - ATT00133243)
`
`RX - 122
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 6,278,786B1, August 21, 2001, McIntosh;
`(AT00133244 - AT00133257)
`
`RX - 123
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 7,103,188 B1, September, 2006, Jones;
`(AT00133270 - AT00133310)
`
`RX - 124
`
`U.S. – Patent No. 7,248,705 B1, July 24, 2007, Mishan;
`(AT00133311 - AT00133317)
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`

`
`Description/Title
`
`Responses to Bose's Objections
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`RX - 125
`
`U.S. – Patent No. WO 95/08907, March 30, 1995, Hoge;
`(AT00133664 - AT00133672)
`
`RX - 126
`
`U.S. – Patent No. WO 98/41974, September 24, 1998,
`Douglas; (AT00133673 - AT00133697)
`
`RX - 127
`
`UK – Patent No. 2 168 220 A, June 11, 1986, Yoshiyuki et
`al.; (AT00133454 - AT00133460)
`
`RX - 128
`
`UK – Patent No. GB 2 187 361 A, September 3, 1987,
`Yamagishi; (AT00133465 - AT00133476)
`
`RX - 129
`
`UK – Patent No. GB 2, 234 882 A, February 13, 1991,
`Salloway; (AT00133477 - AT00133490)
`
`RX - 130 WO 91/13429, September 5, 1991, Noise Cancellation
`Technologies, Inc.; (AT00133577 - AT00133609)
`
`RX - 131 WO 95 00946 A (Active Noise and Vibration Technologies),
`January 5, 1995; (AT00133610 - AT00133663)
`
`RX - 132 Witness Statement of Mark Lunt
`Question/Response No. 33
`Question/Response No. 35
`Question/Response No. 36
`Question/Response No. 37
`Question/Response No. 38
`Question/Response No. 45
`Question/Response No. 47
`RX - 133 Witness Statement of Keith Holland
`Question/Response No. 48
`Question/Response No. 58
`Question/Response No. 60
`Question/Response No. 62
`Question/Response No. 64
`Question/Response No. 71
`Question/Response No. 77
`Question/Response No. 80
`Question/Response No. 89
`Question/Response No. 90
`Question/Response No. 93
`Question/Response No. 94
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`A, C, R
`
`F, C
`F, C
`F, C
`