PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`
`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
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`STANDING ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. REQUEST TO HOLD CLAIMS 1-28 OF THE ’898 PATENT
`UNPATENTABLE .......................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`The Alleged Invention of the ’898 Patent ............................................ 4
`
`B.
`
`Summary Of The Prosecution History Of The ’898 Patent ................. 5
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`
`A.
`
`Standards For Claim Construction ....................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Construction ............................................. 8
`
`35 USC § 112, ¶ 6, Means-Plus-Function Limitations ............... 8
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“weight updating means” ..................................................................... 9
`
`“weight constraining means” ............................................................. 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1 and 9 ........................................................................... 11
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 13
`
`Claim 21 .................................................................................... 16
`
`D.
`
`“truncating means” ............................................................................. 17
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`“inhibiting means” ............................................................................. 18
`
`“delay means” .................................................................................... 20
`
`G.
`
`“beamforming means” ....................................................................... 22
`
`VI. PRIOR ART TO THE ’898 PATENT FORMING THE BASIS FOR
`THIS PETITION ........................................................................................... 24
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`i
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Documents .......................................................................... 24
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Unpatentability Arguments ........................................... 25
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM ..................... 29
`
`A. Ground 1: 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”) .................................................................................. 29
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2: 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”) ........................................................................... 42
`
`Ground 3: 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”) ...................... 53
`
`D. Ground 4: 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 ........................................................ 56
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: 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 ................................................................ 58
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 9
`
`In re Donaldson Co., Inc.,
`16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 9
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys.,
`248 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc.,
`174 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 8
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................. 24, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 1, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`iii
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`
`
`Description
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,825,898, “System And Method For Adaptive
`Interference Cancelling,” to Joseph Marash, issued on Oct. 20, 2998
`(“the ’898 Patent”)
`
`Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Acer Inc. and Acer America, Civil Action
`No. 2:14-cv-04488, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 28
`(E.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2014)
`
`Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Acer Inc. and Acer America, Civil Action
`No. 2:14-cv-04488, Defendants’ Answers and Defenses, Dkt. No. 32
`(E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2014)
`
`Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Lenovo Holding Co. and Lenovo (U.S.)
`Inc., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-04489, Plaintiff’s First Amended
`Complaint, Dkt. No. 35 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2014)
`
`Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Lenovo Holding Co. and Lenovo (U.S.)
`Inc., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-04489, Defendants’ Answer and
`Counterclaims, Dkt. No. 39 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2014)
`
`Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Lenovo Holding Co. and Lenovo (U.S.)
`Inc., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-04489, Plaintiff’s Answer to
`Defendants Lenovo Holding Company Inc., and Lenovo (United
`States) Inc.’s Counterclaims, Dkt. No. 45 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2014)
`
`Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Toshiba Corp., and Toshiba American
`Information Systems, Inc. Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-04492, Plaintiff’s
`First Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 34 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2014)
`
`Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Toshiba Corp., and Toshiba American
`Information Systems, Inc. Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-04492, Toshiba
`Corp.’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses, Dkt. No. 38 (E.D.N.Y.
`Nov. 24, 2014)
`
`Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Toshiba Corp., and Toshiba American
`Information Systems, Inc. Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-04492, Toshiba
`America Info. Sys., Inc.’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses, Dkt. No.
`
`Exhibit #
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`iv
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`
`
`Description
`
`39 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2014)
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Civil Action No.
`2:15-cv-00208, Plaintiff’s Complaint For Patent Infringement, Dkt.
`No. 1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2015)
`
`Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Dell Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-
`00209, Plaintiff’s Complaint For Patent Infringement, Dkt. No. 1
`(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2015)
`
`Andrea Electronics Corp. v. ASUSTek Computer Inc., and ASUS
`Computer International, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00214, Plaintiff’s
`Complaint For Patent Infringement, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 14,
`2015)
`
`Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., Civil
`Action No. 2:15-cv-00215, Court’s Notice of Related Case, Dkt. No. 4
`(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2015)
`
`In re Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software and Products
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-949, Verified Complaint Under
`Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (U.S.I.T.C. Jan. 23, 2015)
`
`In re Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software and Products
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-949, Notice of Institution of
`Investigation (U.S.I.T.C. Mar. 12, 2015)
`
`Table 1 – List Of Each Claim Element Annotated With Its Claim
`Number and A Reference Letter
`
`Petitioner’s List of Related Litigation Matters, And Patents at Issue
`
`Petitioner’s List of IPR Petitions and Challenged Patent Claims of the
`Andrea Patents
`
`Prosecution History of Application No. 08/672,899 which issued as
`U.S. Patent No. 5,825,898
`
`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”)
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`v
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`
`
`Description
`
`James M. Kates et al., A Comparison of Hearing Aid Array-Processing
`Techniques, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99 (5), May 1996 (“Kates”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,627,799, “Beamformer Using Coefficient Restrained
`Adaptive Filters For Detecting Interference Signals,” to Osamu
`Hoshuyama, issued on May 6, 1997 (“Hoshuyama”)
`Sven Fischer et al., An Adaptive Microphone Array for Hands-Free
`Communication, Proc. IWAENC-95, Røros, Norway, June 1995
`(“Fischer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,557,646, “Multipath Eliminating Filter,” to Souichi
`Honma, issued on Sept. 17, 1996 (“Honma”)
`
`Declaration of David V. Anderson (“Anderson Decl.”)
`
`Realtek Semiconductor Corporation v. Andrea Electronics Corp., Civil
`Action No. 5:15-cv-03184, Complaint For Breach Of Contract And
`Declaratory Judgment, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2015)
`
`Exhibit #
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`vi
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, Petitioner hereby respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-28 of Ex. 1001, U.S. Patent No. 5,825,898 (“the ’898
`
`Patent”) which issued on October 20, 1998. The challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the prior art publications identified and
`
`applied in this Petition.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, Petitioner provides the following mandatory
`
`disclosures:
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest.
`
`Petitioner, Realtek Semiconductor Corporation, No. 2, Innovation Road II,
`
`Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan is a real party-in-interest for the
`
`instant petition.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner submits that the ’898 Patent is
`
`the subject of a series of seven related patent infringement lawsuits brought by
`
`Andrea Electronics Corporation (“Andrea”) in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of New York (“EDNY Actions”) and one action in the U.S.
`
`International Trade Commission (“USITC Action”). See Ex. 1014 (the court’s
`
`notice of related EDNY Actions); see also, Ex. 1016 (the court’s notice of
`
`instituted USITC Action ). Andrea filed amended complaints in the EDNY
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`1
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`Actions on November 10, 2014 and January 14, 2015 (Exs. 1002, 1004, 1007,
`
`1010-1013); and filed a verified complaint in the USITC Action on January 23,
`
`2015 (Ex. 1015). Defendants’ in the EDNY Actions filed answers and
`
`counterclaims on November 24, 2014. See Exs. 1003, 1005, 1008 and 1009.
`
`Andrea responded to one of the EDNY Action counterclaims on December 15,
`
`2014. See Ex. 1006. In addition, Realtek filed a breach of contract lawsuit
`
`concerning a license agreement against Andrea in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Northern District of California on July 9, 2015 (“NDCA Action”). See Ex. 1027.
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any reexamination certificates or pending prosecution
`
`concerning the ’898 patent.
`
`Petitioner further states that the EDNY, USITC and NDCA Actions also
`
`involve Andrea’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,825,898; 6,363,345; 6,483,923; and 6,377,637
`
`(collectively and including the ‘898 patent “Andrea patents”). Concurrently,
`
`Petitioner is filing six inter partes review petitions, challenging certain claim
`
`elements of above referenced Andrea patents, which are: (1) subject to additional
`
`prior art references; and (2) may affect, or be affected by, decision(s) in the
`
`proceedings of the Andrea patents. For further references, Petitioner includes as
`
`Exhibit 1018 (list of related litigation matters); and Exhibit 1019 (list of
`
`concurrently filed IPR2015 petitions and challenged patent claims).
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information – 37 C.F.R.
`§42.8(b)(3) & (4).
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`2
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`John M. Caracappa (Reg. No. 43,532) is lead counsel. Tremayne M. Norris
`
`(Reg. No. 58,683), Stanley C.T. Kuo (pro hac vice motion to be filed), Trevor C.
`
`Hill (pro hac vice motion to be filed), and David L. Hecht (Reg. No. 61,618) are
`
`backup counsel. The Petitioner may be served in this matter as follows:
`
`Post and Hand
`Delivery
`
`Steptoe & Johnson LLP
`1330 Connecticut Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Email
`
`jcaracap@steptoe.com; tnoris@steptoe.com;
`skuo@steptoe.com; thill@steptoe.com; dhecht@steptoe.com;
`Realtek898IPR@steptoe.com
`
`Telephone No.
`
`202-429-6267
`
`Facsimile No.
`
`202-261-0597
`
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`II.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103(a) and 42.15(a), the required filing fees for
`
`this petition are submitted and charged to Deposit Account 19-4293. Should any
`
`further fees be required by the present Petition, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“the Board”) is hereby authorized to charge the above referenced Deposit
`
`Account.
`
`III. STANDING
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the patent sought
`
`for review, U.S. Patent No. 5,825,898, is available for inter partes review and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of the
`
`patent.
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`3
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`IV. REQUEST TO HOLD CLAIMS 1-28 OF THE ’898 PATENT
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner requests that the Board hold
`
`claims 1-28 of the ’898 Patent unpatentable. Such relief is justified as the alleged
`
`invention of the ’898 Patent was described by others prior to the effective filing
`
`date of the ’898 Patent. Attached hereto as Ex. 1017, is a Table that provides the
`
`‘898 patent claim elements challenged, each limitation annotated with its claim
`
`number and a reference letter.
`
`A. The Alleged Invention of the ’898 Patent
`
`The ’898 patent is directed to a system and method for adaptive interference
`
`cancelling through adaptive beamforming. Ex. 1001 at 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
`
`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.
`
`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. Ex. 1001
`
`at 9:6-40. It further describes the use of decolorizing filters to flatten the frequency
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`4
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`spectrum of the noise cancelling signal, and an inhibitor which inhibits adaptation
`
`based on a normalized power difference. Id. at 5:1-18.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Of The Prosecution History Of The ’898 Patent
`
`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., 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.
`
`The Examiner issued a Non-Final Rejection on January 12, 1998 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 allegedly
`
`unpatentable 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. Id.
`
`The Examiner stated the following with regard to Hoshuyama:
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`5
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`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 1ine 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 𝜃) (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).
`
`Regarding D/A and A/D conversion, the Examiner notes that this technology
`
`is well-known to those of skill in the art:
`
`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).
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`6
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`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_1020-81-82).
`
`The Applicant subsequently filed an Amendment on June 1, 1998,
`
`cancelling all rejected claims and accepting the allowed claims 1-28.
`
`The Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on July 21, 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
`
`Examiner never explained or discussed the applicability of Hoshuyama to
`
`particular features or elements of the allowed claims.
`
`This petition 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.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Standards For Claim Construction
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`7
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`1.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Construction
`
`Unless otherwise addressed herein, for the purposes of inter partes review
`
`only, the terms of the ’898 Patent’s claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the ’898
`
`patent’s specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`Further, while the Petitioner believes that several claims may be invalid
`
`under 35 USC § 112, Petitioner is still providing prior art to challenge the
`
`patentability of the requested claims to the extent the Board can determine that the
`
`claims are valid under the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard. The
`
`Petitioner’s prior art submission, however, is not an admission on its part that all
`
`claims are valid under 35 USC § 112. Accordingly, the Petitioner reserves the
`
`right to later challenge the validity of the claims of the ’898 patent under 35 USC §
`
`112 in federal district court or in an action before the International Trade
`
`Commission.
`
`2.
`
`35 USC § 112, ¶ 6, Means-Plus-Function Limitations
`
`If the word “means” or “means for” is used in a claim, a presumption arises
`
`that 35 USC § 112, ¶ 6 is invoked. Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 174 F.3d
`
`1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 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. MPEP 2181(I). Claim terms that invoke
`
`35 USC § 112, ¶ 6, are limited to the described corresponding structure, and
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`8
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`equivalents thereof. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., 248
`
`F.3d 1303, 1311-13 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189,
`
`1194-95 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2181.
`
`If a patentee has invoked computer-implemented means-plus-function
`
`claiming, the corresponding structure in the specification for the computer
`
`implemented function can be an algorithm, or a special purpose computer
`
`programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm, unless a general purpose
`
`computer is sufficient for performing the function. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty
`
`Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (requiring
`
`disclosure of an algorithm when it is not disputed that claims were drafted in
`
`means-plus-function format).
`
`B.
`
` “weight updating means”
`
`Petitioner believes that a construction of “weight updating means” is
`
`required as the term appears to take the form of a means-plus-function claim under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`This term is recited in claims 1[e], 5[e], 9[h], 21[h] as follows:
`
`weight updating means for 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
`
`See Ex. 1017 (Table of claim elements).
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`9
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`The structure in the specification corresponding to this term appears to be
`
`element 103 of Fig. 9 of the ’898 patent, labeled “LMS Weight Update.”
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 9 (annotated).
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand “LMS” here to refer to the well-
`
`known least mean-square algorithm. However, the ’898 patent is not limited to the
`
`least mean-square algorithm alone.
`
`There are many techniques to continuously update the
`values of the filter weights. The preferred embodiment
`uses the Least Mean-Square (LMS) algorithm which
`minimize [sic] the mean-square value of the difference
`between the main channel and the cancelling signal, but
`in an alternative embodiment, other algorithms such as
`Recursive Least Square (RLS) can also be used.
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`10
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`Ex. 1001 at 8:58-64 (emphasis added). Accordingly, since the specific steps
`
`shown in Fig. 11 only apply to one disclosed embodiment, they should not be
`
`construed so as to limit the scope of this term.
`
`Thus, based on its plain meaning in light of the specification, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would likely consider “weight updating means” to be 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.
`
`C.
`
`“weight constraining means”
`
`Petitioner believes that a construction of “weight constraining means” is
`
`required as the term appears to take the form of a means-plus-function claim under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1 and 9
`
`The term “weight constraining means” is recited in claims 1 and 9 as
`
`follows:
`
`weight constraining means for truncating said new filter
`weight values to predetermined threshold values when
`each of the new filter weight values exceeds the
`corresponding threshold value
`
`See Ex. 1017 (Table of claim elements) (emphasis added).
`
`The corresponding function recited for the “weight constraining means” is
`
`“truncating said new filter weight values to predetermined threshold values when
`
`each of the new filter weight values exceeds the corresponding threshold value.”
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`11
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`The structure in the specification corresponding to this term appears to lie
`
`within element 104 of Fig. 9 of Ex. 1001, labeled “Frequency-Selective Weight
`
`Constraint,” and referred to elsewhere in the specification as the “frequency
`
`selective weight constraint unit 104.”
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 9 (annotated).
`The frequency selective weight constraint unit is depicted in more detail in
`
`
`
`as element 110 in Fig. 10 (annotated):
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`12
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`The ’898 patent specification states the following with respect to elements
`
`
`
`115 of this unit:
`
`Each of the truncating units 115a-115h compares the
`frequency representation values with a threshold
`assigned to each bin, and truncates the values if they
`exceeds [sic] the threshold.
`
`Ex. 1001 at9:20-23 (emphasis added).
`
`This portion of the specification explains that it is the truncating units 115
`
`which perform the comparison of weight values with a threshold and truncate the
`
`values if they exceed the threshold. Thus, the structure corresponding to the
`
`recited function of “truncating said new filter weight values to predetermined
`
`threshold values when each of the new filter weight values exceeds the
`
`corresponding threshold value” is truncating units 115.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 5
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`13
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`The term “weight constraining means” is recited in claim 5f as follows:
`
`weight constraining means for converting the new filter
`weight values
`to
`frequency
`representation values,
`truncating
`the
`frequency
`representation values
`to
`predetermined threshold values, and converting them
`back to adaptive filter weights
`
`Ex. 1001 at 12:35-39 (emphasis added).
`
`The corresponding function recited for the “weight constraining means” in
`
`claim 5 is three-fold: (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.”
`
`As discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 9, the structure in the
`
`specification corresponding to this term appears to lie within element 110 of Fig.
`
`10 (annotated) of Ex. 1001, labeled “frequency selective weight constraint unit.”
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`14
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`The corresponding description to Fig. 10 in the ’898 patent states the
`
`
`
`following:
`
`FIG. 10 depicts a preferred embodiment of the frequency
`selective weight-constraint unit. The frequency-selective
`weight-control unit 110
`includes a Fast Fourier
`Transform (FFT) unit 112, a set of frequency bins 114, a
`set of truncating units 115, a set of storage cells 116, and
`an inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT) unit 117,
`connected in series.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 9:6-11
`
`With respect to the first recited function, “converting the new filter weight
`
`values to frequency representation values,” the specification states that “The FFT
`
`unit 112 receives adaptive filter weights 111 and performs the FFT of the filter
`
`weights 111 to obtain frequency representation values 113.” (Emphasis added).
`
`Id. at 9:12-14. Accordingly, the FFT unit 112 is the structure corresponding to the
`
`first recited function.
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`15
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`With respect to the second recited function, “truncating the frequency
`
`representation values to predetermined threshold values,” as discussed above with
`
`respect to claims 1 and 9, the structure corresponding to this function is the
`
`truncating units 115.
`
`Finally, with respect to the third recited function, “converting them back to
`
`adaptive filter weights,” the specification states that “[t]he truncated frequency
`
`representation values are temporarily stored in 116a-116h before the IFFT unit
`
`117 converts them back to new filter weight values 118.” (Emphasis added).
`
`Ex. 1001 at 9:23-26. Thus, the structure corresponding to the third recited function
`
`is the IFFT unit 117.
`
`Thus, the structure corresponding to the recited function of “truncating said
`
`new filter weight values to predetermined threshold values when each of the new
`
`filter weight values exceeds the corresponding threshold value” is a combination of
`
`FFT unit 112, truncating units 115, and IFFT unit 117.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 21
`
`The term “weight constraining means” is recited in claim 21 as follows:
`
`the
`for constraining
`weight constraining means
`operation of the adaptive filter by converting the new
`filter weight values to frequency representation values,
`truncating
`the
`frequency
`representation values
`to
`predetermined threshold values, and converting them
`back to adaptive filter weights.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 14:43-48 (emphasis added).
`
`IPR2015-01391
`
`16
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,898
`
`This term as recited in claim 21 is identical to that recited in claim 5 except
`
`for the addition that it is for “constraining the operation of the adaptive filter by”
`
`performing the functions recited in claim 5. Since constraining the operation of the
`
`adaptive filter is simply a result of performing the functions discussed above with
`
`respect to claim 5, the structure is identical to that of claim 5.
`
`D.
`
`“truncat