UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2015-01391
`
`Patent 5,825,898
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DAVID ANDERSON
`
`RTL898_1026-0001
`
`Realtek 898 Ex. 1026
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`Introduction.................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Qualifications and Compensation ................................................................... 1
`III. Materials Considered ..................................................................................... 4
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art ................................................................. 4
`V. My Understanding of Patent Law ................................................................... 4
`A. Burden of Proof.......................................................................................... 5
`B. Anticipation ............................................................................................... 5
`C. Obviousness ............................................................................................... 5
`D. Claim Construction .................................................................................... 7
`VI. The ’898 Patent.............................................................................................11
`VII. Prosecution History Of The ’898 Patent........................................................12
`VIII. Prior Art Analysis .........................................................................................15
`A. Kompis In View Of Hoshuyama ...............................................................16
`1. Claim 1 ..................................................................................................17
`2. Claim 3 ..................................................................................................27
`3. Claim 4 ..................................................................................................30
`4. Claim 9 ..................................................................................................30
`5. Claim 11 ................................................................................................34
`6. Claim 12 ................................................................................................34
`7. Claim 13 ................................................................................................35
`8. Claim 14 and 15 ....................................................................................36
`9. Claim 16 ................................................................................................36
`10. Claim 17 ................................................................................................38
`11. Claim 18 ................................................................................................39
`12. Claim 20 ................................................................................................39
`B. Kompis In View Of Kates .........................................................................41
`1. Claim 5 ..................................................................................................42
`i
`
`RTL898_1026-0002
`
`

`
`2
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 7 and 8 ..................................................................................... ..47
`
`Claim 21 .............................................................................................. ..47
`
`Claim 22 .............................................................................................. ..47
`
`Claims 24-28 ....................................................................................... ..52
`
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................ ..53
`
`Claim 10 .............................................................................................. ..55
`
`2. Claims 7 and 8.......................................................................................47
`3. Claim 21 ................................................................................................47
`4. Claim 22 ................................................................................................47
`5. Claims 24-28 .........................................................................................52
`C. Kompis In View Of Hoshuyama And Fischer ...........................................52
`C. Kompis In View Of Hoshuyama And Fischer ......................................... ..52
`1. Claim 2 ..................................................................................................53
`2. Claim 10 ................................................................................................55
`D. Kompis In View Of Kates And Fischer .....................................................55
`D. Kompis In View Of Kates And Fischer ................................................... ..55
`1. Claims 6 and 23 .....................................................................................56
`E. Kompis In View Of Hoshuyama, And Further In View Of Honma ...........57
`E. Kompis In View Of Hoshuyama, And Further In View Of Honma ......... ..57
`1. Claim 19 ................................................................................................58
`IX. Conclusion ....................................................................................................59
`
`1.
`
`Claims 6 and 23 ................................................................................... ..56
`
`1.
`
`Claim 19 .............................................................................................. ..58
`
`IX. Conclusion .................................................................................................. ..59
`
`RTL898_1026-0003
`RTL898_1 026-0003
`
`ii
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Appendix 1 – Curriculum Vitae of David Anderson
`
`Appendix 2 – List of Documents Considered
`
`Appendix A – Claim Chart For U.S. Patent 5,825,898: Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11-18,
`And 20 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over
`Martin Kompis et al., Noise Reduction for Hearing Aids: Combining Directional
`Microphones with an Adaptive Beamformer, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96 (3),
`September 1994 (“Kompis”) In View Of U.S. Patent No. 5,627,799 to Hoshuyama
`(“Hoshuyama”)
`
`Appendix B – Claim Chart For U.S. Patent 5,825,898: Claims 5, 7, 8, 21, 22, And
`24-28 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over
`Kompis In View Of James M. Kates et al., A Comparison Of Hearing Aid Array-
`Processing Techniques, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99 (5), May 1996 (“Kates”)
`
`Appendix C – Claim Chart For U.S. Patent 5,825,898: Claims 2 And 10 Are
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Kompis In View
`Of Hoshuyama, And Further In View Of Sven Fischer et al., An Adaptive
`Microphone Array for Hands-Free Communication, Proc. IWAENC-95, Røros,
`Norway, June 1995 (“Fischer”)
`
`Appendix D – Claim Chart For U.S. Patent 5,825,898: Claims 6 And 23 Are
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Kompis In View
`Of Kates, And Further In View Of Fischer
`
`Appendix E – Claim Chart For U.S. Patent 5,825,898: Claim 19 Is Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Kompis In View Of
`Hoshuyama, And Further In View Of Honma
`
`RTL898_1026-0004
`
`iii
`
`

`
`I, David Anderson, hereby declare, affirm and state the following:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`The facts set forth below are known to me personally, and I have firsthand
`
`knowledge of them.
`
`2.
`
`I make this Declaration in support of a Petition for inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,825,898 (“the ’898 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by Steptoe & Johnson LLP on behalf of Realtek
`
`Semiconductor Corporation.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights, and
`
`opinions on the materials I have reviewed in this case related to the ’898 Patent,
`
`including the references that form the basis for the grounds of rejection set forth in
`
`the Petition No. IPR2015-01391 for Inter Partes Review of the ’898 Patent
`
`(“Petition”), and the scientific and technical knowledge regarding the same subject
`
`matter at the time of the alleged inventions disclosed in the’898 Patent.
`
`II. Qualifications and Compensation
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen and I am a citizen of the United States.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, and other relevant qualifications. My curriculum vitae, including my
`
`qualifications, a list of the publications that I have authored during my technical
`
`career, and a list of the cases in which, during the previous four years, I have
`
`RTL898_1026-0005
`
`1
`
`

`
`testified as an expert at trial or by deposition, is attached to this declaration as
`
`Appendix 1.
`
`7.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Brigham Young University in 1993. In 1994, I earned my Master of Science
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering, also from Brigham Young University. I earned
`
`my Doctorate of Philosophy in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Georgia
`
`Institute of Technology in 1999, with my dissertation on “Audio Signal
`
`Enhancement Using Multi-resolution Sinusoidal Modeling.”
`
`8.
`
`After obtaining my Doctorate of Philosophy degree, I worked as an
`
`Education Specialist at Texas Instruments, Inc. from April 1999 through
`
`September of 1999. In this position, I developed a self-paced course on signal
`
`processing fundamentals and implementation for practicing engineers.
`
`9.
`
`In September of 1999, I joined the faculty of Georgia Institute of
`
`Technology as an Assistant Professor in the School of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering. While on this faculty, I taught courses in signal processing and
`
`computer architecture and performed research in signal processing and low-power
`
`implementation of signal processing systems.
`
`10.
`
`In June of 2005, I was promoted to the rank of Associate Professor, and in
`
`March of 2012, I became a full Professor, where I continued teaching and research
`
`in signal processing and signal processing systems with an emphasis in low-power
`
`RTL898_1026-0006
`
`2
`
`

`
`systems, signal enhancement, and signal processing related to human audio
`
`perception.
`
`11.
`
`I have authored and co-authored approximately 200 journal publications,
`
`conference proceedings, technical articles, technical papers, book chapters, and
`
`technical presentations, in a broad array of signal processing technology. I have
`
`also developed and taught over many courses related to digital signal processing
`
`and signal processing systems. These courses have included introductory as well
`
`as more advanced courses.
`
`12.
`
`I have three patents related to the field of audio signal enhancement, U.S.
`
`Patent no. 6,351,731; U.S. Patent no. 6,453,285; and U.S. Patent no. 7,034,603.
`
`Additionally, I have many scholarly publications on enhancing speech signals and
`
`removing noise that are included in my CV including J. M. Hurtado and D. V.
`
`Anderson “FFT-based block processing in speech enhancement: potential artifacts
`
`and solutions,” IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing,
`
`19(8):2527-2537, Nov. 2011.
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $350 per hour for my
`
`work in connection with this matter. The compensation is not dependent in any
`
`way on the contents of this Declaration, the substance of any further opinions or
`
`testimony that I may provide, or the ultimate outcome of this matter.
`
`RTL898_1026-0007
`
`3
`
`

`
`III. Materials Considered
`
`14.
`
`I have carefully reviewed the ’898 Patent and its file history. I have also
`
`reviewed several prior art references.
`
`15.
`
`For convenience, all of the sources that I considered in preparing this
`
`declaration are listed in Appendix 2.
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed that my analysis of the interpretation of the asserted
`
`claims of the ’898 patent must be undertaken from the perspective of a person
`
`possessing ordinary skill in the art of the ’898 patent. In my opinion, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’898 patent would have been an
`
`individual with at least a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering with a specialty
`
`in digital signal processing. In the alternative, this person would have a Bachelor’s
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering with at least two years of training in signal
`
`processing specializing in adaptive signal processing, and at least two years of
`
`experience with microphone array processing algorithm development and
`
`implementation. I possess these qualifications, and I have considered the issues
`
`herein from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`V. My Understanding of Patent Law
`
`17.
`
`I am not an attorney but I have had the concept of patentability explained to
`
`me. I understand that a patent claim can be unpatentable under the United States
`
`patent laws for various reasons, including, for example, anticipation or obviousness
`4
`
`RTL898_1026-0008
`
`

`
`in light of the prior art. In arriving at my opinions, I have applied the following
`
`legal standards and analyses regarding patentability.
`
`A.
`
`Burden of Proof
`
`18.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has the burden to prove a proposition of
`
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. I also understand that this is a
`
`lower standard than the clear and convincing evidence standard that is required to
`
`prove unpatentability in patent litigation before a district court.
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a claim is anticipated by a prior art reference if the prior art
`
`reference discloses every element in the claim. Such a disclosure can be express (it
`
`says or shows it), or it can be inherent (the element must necessarily be there even
`
`if the prior art does not say it or show it). If the claim is anticipated, the claim is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the first step in an anticipation analysis is to construe the
`
`claim, and the second step is to compare the construed claim to the prior art
`
`reference.
`
`C.
`
`Obviousness
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a patent claim may be unpatentable for obviousness even if
`
`it is not anticipated by the prior art. I understand that a patent claim is obvious if
`
`the differences between the claimed intervention and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter of the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to
`5
`
`RTL898_1026-0009
`
`

`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. If the claim is
`
`obvious, the claim is unpatentable.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that before an obviousness determination is made, the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art must be considered, and the scope and content of the prior
`
`art must be considered, as well. I understand that to determine the scope and
`
`content of prior art, one must determine what prior art is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`particular problem the inventor faced. I understand that prior art is reasonably
`
`pertinent if it is in the same field as the claimed invention, or is from another field
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to in trying to solve the
`
`problem.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a patent claim maybe be obvious if the prior art would have
`
`suggested, motivated, or provided a reason to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`combine certain prior art references to arrive at the elements of the claim. I also
`
`understand that one can look at interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the
`
`effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace,
`
`and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art—all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the
`
`known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. I further understand
`
`that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
`
`This person of ordinary creativity works in the contexts of a community of
`
`RTL898_1026-0010
`
`6
`
`

`
`inventors and of the marketplace. The obviousness inquiry needs to reflect these
`
`realities within which inventions and patents function. In order to arrive at a
`
`conclusion that an invention is obvious, it can be helpful to identify a reason that
`
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
`
`elements in the way the claimed invention does.
`
`D.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`24.
`
`For the purposes of my opinions related to the issue of patentability of the
`
`’898 Patent, I have been informed that the claims of the ’898 Patent are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification from the
`
`perspective of one skilled in the art. In comparing the claims of the ’898 Patent to
`
`the known prior art, I have carefully considered the ’898 Patent and the ’898 Patent
`
`prosecution history based upon my experience and knowledge in the relevant field.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that if the word “means” or “means for” is used in a
`
`claim, a presumption arises that 35 USC § 112, ¶ 6 is invoked. I have also been
`
`informed that this presumption applies when 1) “means for” is modified by
`
`functional language, and 2) “means for” is not modified by sufficient structure for
`
`achieving the stated function. I have been informed that when a claim limitation
`
`falls under this statute, it is construed to cover only the corresponding structure,
`
`material, or acts described in the specification, and equivalents that were known at
`
`the time of the invention. I have also been informed that a claim limitation that
`
`RTL898_1026-0011
`
`7
`
`

`
`does not use the term “means” or “step” will trigger the rebuttable presumption
`
`that 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph does not apply and this presumption is a strong
`
`one that is not readily overcome. I understand that a disclosed structure is
`
`corresponding if the patent’s specification clearly links or associates that structure
`
`to the function recited in the claim.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that a computer-implemented means-plus-function
`
`term is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and
`
`equivalents thereof, and the corresponding structure is typically an algorithm
`
`unless a general-purpose computer is disclosed and the function can be achieved
`
`by the general-purpose computer without special programming. I have also been
`
`informed that the algorithm may be expressed in any understandable terms
`
`including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other
`
`manner that provides sufficient structure.
`
`27.
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, I have applied the following constructions
`
`when analyzing the prior art and the claims. Because I have been informed that the
`
`claim construction standard in this proceeding differs from that used in U.S.
`
`district court litigation and actions before the International Trade Commission
`
`(“ITC”), nothing herein should be taken as an indication that I consider these
`
`constructions in the table below to control in a district court or ITC setting, and I
`
`RTL898_1026-0012
`
`8
`
`

`
`reserve the right to offer opinions that different constructions are correct under the
`
`claim constructions standards applicable in any district court or ITC litigation.
`
`Claims
`
`Term
`
`Construction
`
`“weight updating
`means”
`
`“weight
`constraining means”
`
`1[e],
`5[e],
`9[h],
`21[h]
`
`1[f],
`5[f],
`9[i],
`21[i]
`
`3, 7,
`11, 24
`
`“inhibiting means”
`
`RTL898_1026-0013
`
`Function: finding new filter weight values of said
`at least one adaptive filter such that the difference
`between the main channel and the cancelling
`signal is minimized
`
`Structure: an algorithm for weight updating in an
`adaptive filter by minimizing the difference
`between the main channel and the cancelling
`signal, including LMS and RLS algorithms
`
`1 .Claims 1 and 9:
`Function: truncating said new filter weight values
`to predetermined threshold values when each of
`the new filter weight values exceeds the
`corresponding threshold value.
`
`Structure: truncating units 115.
`
`2. Claims 5 and 21
`Function: (1) converting the new filter weight
`values to frequency representation values, (2)
`truncating the frequency representation values to
`predetermined threshold values, and (3) converting
`them back to adaptive filter weights.
`
`Structure: a combination of FFT unit 112,
`truncating units 115, and IFFT unit 117.
`
`Function: (1) estimating the power of the main
`channel and the power of said at least one
`reference channel, and (2) generating an inhibit
`signal to said weight updating means when a
`normalized power difference between the main
`channel and said at least one reference channel is
`
`9
`
`

`
`Claims
`
`Term
`
`Construction
`
`positive.
`
`Structure: inhibiting unit 9 that includes power
`estimation units 81 and 82, along with comparator
`97.
`
`It is difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art to
`fully comprehend what the patentee regards as the
`“delay means” when this term is viewed in light of
`the specification. The specification does not
`explain what the structure of the delay means can
`be.
`
`Alternatively, if this claim element is construed
`under 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6:
`
`Function: delaying the main channel so that the
`main channel is synchronized with the cancelling
`signal before the difference unit subtracts the
`cancelling signal from the main channel.
`
`Structure: hardware or software components that
`delay the main channel so that the main channel is
`synchronized with the cancelling signal before the
`difference unit subtracts the cancelling signal from
`the main channel.
`
`1. Claims 16 and 26
`Function: spatially filtering signals from the
`sampling unit to exhibit the highest sensitivity
`toward the signal source
`
`Structure: a spatial filter which filters a signal
`coming in all directions to produce a signal
`coming in a specific direction without physically
`moving the sensor array
`
`2. Claims 17 and 27
`
`10
`
`12
`
`“delay means”
`
`16-17,
`26-27
`
`“beamforming
`means”
`
`RTL898_1026-0014
`
`

`
`Claims
`
`Term
`
`Construction
`
`Function: spatially filtering signals from the
`sampling unit to exhibit the lowest sensitivity
`toward the signal source
`
`Structure: a spatial filter which filters a signal
`coming in all directions to produce a signal
`coming in a specific direction without physically
`moving the sensor array
`
`Function: truncating the frequency representation
`values stored in each frequency bin to a
`predetermined threshold value if the frequency
`representation values exceed the threshold value
`associated with each frequency bin.
`
`Structure: truncating units 115
`
`22
`
`“a set of truncating
`means”
`
`28.
`
`For the reasons explained below, claims 1-28 of the ’898 patent are
`
`unpatentable as being obvious by the prior art discussed below. I reserve the right
`
`to amend and/or supplement this declaration in light of additional relevant
`
`evidence, arguments, or testimony presented, for example, during discovery for
`
`this IPR.
`
`VI. The ’898 Patent
`
`29.
`
`The ’898 patent is directed to a system and method for adaptive interference
`
`cancelling through adaptive beamforming. Ex. 1001, 1:4-8; 2:1-29. The alleged
`
`invention separates a main channel from a reference channel through beamforming
`
`signals received and sampled from an array of sensors. Id. at 4:42-5:14. The
`
`RTL898_1026-0015
`
`11
`
`

`
`reference channel is adapted to the noise present in the main channel through use
`
`of adaptive filters, and the noise is subsequently subtracted from the main channel
`
`to produce a signal with reduced interference. Id.
`
`30.
`
`The ’898 patent also describes converting the filter weights of the adaptive
`
`filters to the frequency domain and truncating them when these weights adapt to a
`
`level above a predetermined threshold in order to avoid signal leakage. Id. at 9:6-
`
`40. It further describes the use of decolorizing filters to flatten the frequency
`
`spectrum of the noise cancelling signal, and an inhibitor which inhibits adaptation
`
`based on a normalized power difference. Id. at 5:1-18.
`
`VII. Prosecution History Of The ’898 Patent
`
`31.
`
`The application that led to the ’898 patent was filed on June 27, 1996, and
`
`issued on October 20, 1998. Ex. 1001; Ex. 1020 at RTL898_1020-133. The
`
`Applicant filed two Information Disclosure Statements, one of which was
`
`supplemented twice. Id. at RTL898_1020-73-74, 92-93, 98-99. The IDS of May
`
`29, 1998 disclosed U.S. Patent No. 5,627,799 to Hoshuyama et al., (Ex. 1023),
`
`while none of the other prior art references discussed in this petition were disclosed
`
`to or cited by the Examiner. Id. at RTL898_1020-111-116.
`
`32.
`
`The Examiner issued a Non-Final Rejection on December 30, 1997 allowing
`
`claims 1-28 without comment. Id. at RTL898_1020-76-84. The Examiner
`
`rejected claims 29-30 and 37-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`RTL898_1026-0016
`
`12
`
`

`
`over Hoshuyama; claims 32-35 and 40-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly
`
`being unpatentable over Hoshuyama in view of Chabries; claims 31 and 39 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable over Hoshuyama in view of
`
`Zurek et al.; and claims 36 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being
`
`unpatentable over Hoshuyama in view of Chabries and further in view of Zurek et
`
`al.
`
`33.
`
`The Examiner stated the following with regard to Hoshuyama:
`
`Hoshuyama teaches an adaptive array beamformer using
`coefficient restrained adaptive filters for detecting
`interference signals comprises
`[sic]
`the steps of
`generating a main channel (e.g., output of filter 2);
`generating a reference channel (e.g., output of filter 16);
`filtering the reference channel by adaptive filter (17) to
`generate a canceling signal (e.g., output signal from
`adder 11); generating the digital output data (5) by
`subtracting the canceling signal from the main channel;
`deriving new filter weight values so that the difference
`between the main channel and the canceling signal is
`minimized (column 5 line 50 to column 6 line 38,
`minimizes the error input of the leaky adaptive filter);
`truncating the new filter weight values to predetermined
`threshold values when each of the new filter weight
`values exceeds
`the corresponding
`threshold value
`(threshold (cid:2016)) (column 6 line 48 to column 7 line 33).
`Ex. 1020, Office Action of January 12, 1998 at pp. 3-4 (RTL898_1020-0079-80).
`
`34.
`
`Regarding D/A and A/D conversion, the Examiner notes that this technology
`
`is well-known to those of skill in the art:
`
`RTL898_1026-0017
`
`13
`
`

`
`the steps of sampling the analog signals to convert them
`to digital form and converting the digital output signal to
`analog form were well-known to one skilled in the art by
`placing analog to digital converter at the output of
`microphones (1) and digital to analog converter at the
`output of subtractor (12).
`
`Id. at p. 5 (RTL898_1020-0081).
`
`35.
`
`The Examiner also noted that Hoshuyama did not teach certain particular
`
`elements of the claims:
`
`the step of
`teach
`Hoshuyama does not explicitly
`converting the new filter weight values to frequency
`representation values, and converting them back to filter
`weight values.
`
`Id. at p. 4 (RTL898_1020-0080).
`
`the step of
`teach
`Hoshuyama does not explicitly
`inhibiting the generation of the cancelling signal when a
`normalized power difference between the main channel
`and the at least one reference channel. [sic]
`
`Id. at pp. 5-6 (RTL898_1020-0081- 82).
`
`36.
`
`The Applicant subsequently filed an Amendment on June 1, 1998,
`
`cancelling all rejected claims and accepting the allowed claims 1-28.
`
`37.
`
`The Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on July 13, 1998, including a
`
`statement of reasons for allowance, which noted only that “the prior art of record
`
`(Hoshuyama, Chabries et al., Elko et al., and Boze)” failed to disclose all of the
`
`required features of the independent claims. Id. at RTL898_1020-129-132. The
`
`RTL898_1026-0018
`
`14
`
`

`
`Examiner never explained or discussed the applicability of Hoshuyama to
`
`particular features or elements of the allowed claims.
`
`38.
`
`This declaration does not rely on any of the subject matter in Hoshuyama
`
`which the Examiner found not to be disclosed, as quoted above, and only relies on
`
`Hoshuyama as a secondary reference in combination with primary references never
`
`previously before the Examiner or the USPTO during the prosecution of the ’898
`
`patent.
`
`VIII. Prior Art Analysis
`
`39.
`
`I now turn to the references applied in the grounds for rejections discussed in
`
`the Petition for Inter Partes Review. In my analysis, I will specifically address the
`
`following references:
`
`No.
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Reference
`Martin Kompis et al., Noise Reduction for Hearing
`Aids: Combining Directional Microphones with an
`Adaptive Beamformer, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96 (3),
`September 1994
`James M. Kates et al., A Comparison of Hearing Aid
`Array-Processing Techniques, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99
`(5), May 1996
`Ex. 1023 U.S. Patent No. 5,627,799
`Sven Fischer et al., An Adaptive Microphone Array for
`Hands-Free Communication, Proc. IWAENC-95,
`Røros, Norway, June 1995
`Ex. 1025 U.S. Patent No. 5,557,646 to Honma
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Referred To As
`
`Kompis
`
`Kates
`
`Hoshuyama
`
`Fischer
`
`Honma
`
`RTL898_1026-0019
`
`15
`
`

`
`Attached hereto as Appendices A-E are claim charts addressing each of the
`
`above references, alone or in combination with other references. I have reviewed
`
`the charts in detail and incorporate the charts herein by reference.
`
`A.
`
`Kompis In View Of Hoshuyama
`
`40.
`
`The article authored by Martin Kompis et al., Noise Reduction for Hearing
`
`Aids: Combining Directional Microphones with an Adaptive Beamformer, J.
`
`Acoust. Soc. Am. 96 (3), September 1994 (“Kompis”), attached to the Petition as
`
`Exhibit 1021, in combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,627,799 to Hoshuyama
`
`(“Hoshuyama”), attached to the Petition as Exhibit 1023, renders obvious at least
`
`claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11-18, and 20 of the ’898 Patent.
`
`41. Kompis is generally about reducing noise in audio signals for hearing aids
`
`by using multiple microphones and an adaptive beamformer. Ex. 1021 at Abstract,
`
`(RTL898_1021-0001). In particular, two microphones are used to generate two
`
`beams, wherein a primary beam is directed forward toward the location of a
`
`desired signal source. Ex. 1021, p. 1911; Fig. 2, (RTL898_1021-0002). The other
`
`beam (secondary beam) has a null response in the desired direction and is
`
`preferentially responsive to signals from other directions. Id. The secondary beam
`
`is filtered with an adaptive filter and then subtracted from the main beam to cancel
`
`interference signals that may be present in the main beam signal. Id.
`
`RTL898_1026-0020
`
`16
`
`

`
`42. Hoshuyama discloses an adaptive array beamformer that features a
`
`microphone array producing a beam responsive to a desired direction, which
`
`contains a target signal and produces other beams that do not contain the target
`
`signal. Ex. 1023 at Abstract. The other beams are filtered using adaptive filters to
`
`cancel interference signals from the target signal. Id. Although Hoshuyama was
`
`considered by the Examiner during prosecution, as explained in detail above, the
`
`Examiner did not cite Hoshuyama in relation to any of the instant claims, nor did
`
`the Examiner consider Hoshuyama as a secondary reference in combination with
`
`Kompis, which was not disclosed or considered by the Examiner.
`
`43. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
`
`Kompis and Hoshuyama because both references describe similar noise
`
`cancellation or reduction systems which have complementary features or aspects as
`
`described further below.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`1. An adaptive system for processing digital input data
`representing signals containing a source signal from a
`signal source on-axis relative to an array of sensors as
`well as interference signals from interference sources
`located off-axis from the signal source and for producing
`digital output data representing the source signal with
`reduced interference signals relative to the source signal,
`comprising:
`[a] a main channel matrix unit for generating a main
`channel from the digital input data, the main
`channel representing signals received in the
`direction of the signal source and having a source
`
`17
`
`RTL898_1026-002