UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2015-01394
`
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`STANDING ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. REQUEST TO HOLD CLAIMS 1-25 and 38-47 OF THE ’345 PATENT
`UNPATENTABLE .......................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’345 Patent ......................................... 4
`
`Summary Of The Prosecution History Of The ’345 Patent ................. 4
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Construction ...................................................... 5
`
`VI. PRIOR ART TO THE ’345 PATENT FORMING THE BASIS FOR
`THIS PETITION ............................................................................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Documents ............................................................................ 6
`
`Summary Of Unpatentability Arguments ............................................ 8
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM ..................... 10
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 12, 13, 21 And 38 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) As Being Anticipated By Hirsch. ............ 10
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 4-11, 25, 39-42, And 46 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Hirsch
`In View Of Martin. ............................................................................. 17
`
`Ground 3: Claims 14-20 And 47 Are Unpatentable Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Hirsch In View
`Of Boll. ............................................................................................... 26
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 21 And 22 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Hirsch In View Of Uesugi. .......... 31
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 23 And 24 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Hirsch And Uesugi, And
`Further In View Of Diethorn Or Lindemann. .................................... 34
`
`Ground 6: Claim 43 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`As Being Obvious Over Hirsch And Martin, And Further
`In View Of Boll. ................................................................................. 36
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`i
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`G. Ground 7: Claims 44 and 45 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Hirsch And Martin,
`And Further In View Of Uesugi. ....................................................... 38
`
`H. Ground 8: Claims 1-3, 21, And 23 Are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b) As Being Anticipated By Graupe. ........................... 39
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Ground 9: Claims 4-11, 13, 25, 38-41, And 46 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Graupe
`In View Of Martin. ............................................................................. 44
`
`Ground 10: Claim 12 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`As Being Obvious Over Graupe In View Of Diethorn Or Boll. ....... 49
`
`K. Ground 11: Claims 13-20, 38, And 47 Are Unpatentable Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Graupe In
`View Of Boll. ..................................................................................... 50
`
`L.
`
`Ground 12: Claim 22 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`As Being Obvious Over Graupe In View Of Uesugi. ....................... 55
`
`M. Ground 13: Claim 24 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`As Being Obvious Over Graupe In View Of Diethorn
`Or Lindemann. ................................................................................... 56
`
`N. Ground 14: Claim 42 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`As Being Obvious Over Graupe and Martin, And Further
`In View Of Diethorn. ......................................................................... 57
`
`O. Ground 15: Claim 43 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`As Being Obvious Over Graupe and Martin, And Further
`In View Of Boll. ................................................................................. 58
`
`P.
`
`Ground 16: Claims 44 and 45 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Graupe and Martin, And
`Further In View Of Uesugi. ............................................................... 58
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345, “System, Method and Apparatus For
`Cancelling Noise” to Joseph Marash and Baruch Berdugo, issued on
`Mar. 26, 2002 (“’345 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 and
`Counterclaims, Dkt. No. 45 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2014)
`
`Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Toshiba Corp. and Toshiba Am.
`Information Sys., 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 Am.
`Information Sys., 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 Am.
`Information Sys., Inc., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-04492, Toshiba
`America Info. Sys., Inc.’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses, Dkt. No.
`39 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2014)
`
`Exhibit #
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`iii
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`Description
`
`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 Int’l, 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, Plaintiff’s Complaint For Patent
`Infringement, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2015)
`
`Exhibit #
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`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)
`
`1014
`
`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. Mar. 12, 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
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`Petitioner’s List of Related Litigation Matters, And Patents at Issue
`
`1018
`
`Petitioner’s List of IPR Petitions and Challenged Patent Claims of the
`Andrea Patents
`
`1019
`
`Prosecution History of Application No. 09/252,874 which issued as
`U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`
`1020
`
`PCT Application No. PCT/US00/03538, “System, Method and
`
`1021
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`iv
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`Description
`Apparatus For Cancelling Noise,” to Joseph Marash and Baruch
`Berdugo, Publication No. WO 00/49602 issued on Aug. 24, 2000
`(“PCT/US00/03538”)
`
`Exhibit #
`
`H. G. Hirsch and C. Ehricher, “Noise estimation techniques for robust
`speech recognition,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, Signal
`Processing, vol. 1, pp. 153 -156, 1995 (“Hirsch”)
`
`Rainer Martin, “An Efficient Algorithm to Estimate the Instantaneous
`SNR of Speech Signals,” Proc. Eurospeech, pp. 1093-96, 1993
`(“Martin”)
`
`Steven F. Boll, “Suppression of Acoustic Noise in Speech Using
`Spectral Subtraction,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and
`Signal Processing, Vol. ASSP-27, No. 2, April 1979 (“Boll”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,459,683, “Apparatus For Calculating The Square
`Root Of The Sum Of Two Squares,” to Mitsuru Uesugi and Kouichi
`Honma, issued on Oct. 17, 1995 (“Uesugi”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,035,048, “Method and Apparatus For Reducing
`Noise In Speech And Audio Signals,” to Eric John Diethorn, issued on
`Mar. 7, 2000 (“Diethorn”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,651,071, “Noise Reduction System For Binaural
`Hearing Aid,” to Eric Lindemann and John Laurence Melanson, issued
`on Jul. 22, 1997 (“Lindemann”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,185,168, “Method and Means For Adaptively
`Filtering Near-Stationary Noise From An Information Bearing Signal,”
`to Daniel Graupe and G. Donald Causey, issued on Jan. 22, 1980
`(“Graupe”)
`
`Alan V. Oppenheim and Ronald W. Schafer, “Digital Signal
`Processing” (Prentice Hall, 1975) pp. 542–545
`
`Declaration of David V. Anderson (“Anderson Decl.”)
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`v
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`Description
`
`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 #
`
`1031
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`vi
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, Petitioner hereby respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-25, 38-47 of Ex. 1001, U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345 (“the
`
`’345 Patent”) which issued on March 26, 2002. The challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 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 ’345 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 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
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`1
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`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. 1031. Petitioner is not aware of any
`
`reexamination certificates or pending prosecution concerning the ’345 patent.
`
`Petitioner further states that the EDNY, USITC and NDCA Actions also
`
`involve Andrea’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,825,898; 6,049,607; 6,483,923; and 6,377,637
`
`(collectively and including the ‘345 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).
`
`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:
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`2
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`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;
`Realtek345IPR@steptoe.com
`
`Telephone No.
`
`202-429-6267
`
`Facsimile No.
`
`202-261-0597
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`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. 6,363,345, is available for inter partes review and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of the
`
`patent.
`
`IV. REQUEST TO HOLD CLAIMS 1-25 and 38-47 OF THE ’345 PATENT
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner requests that the Board hold
`
`claims 1-25 and 38-47 of the ’345 Patent unpatentable. Such relief is justified as the
`
`alleged invention of the ’345 Patent was described by others prior to the effective
`
`filing date of the ’345 Patent. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1017, is a Table that
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`3
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`provides the ’345 patent claim elements challenged, each limitation annotated with
`
`its claim number and a reference letter.
`
`A. The Alleged Invention Of The ’345 Patent
`
`The ’345 patent is directed to a digital signal processing system for cancelling
`
`noise. Ex. 1001, Title, Abstract. The system uses a threshold detector to detect the
`
`position of noise elements in a signal containing speech and noise, in which the
`
`threshold is set according to current and future minimum values of the frequency
`
`spectrum elements of the signal. Id.
`
`The system further employs two-dimensional smoothing on the estimated
`
`signal using neighboring frequency bins and an exponential average over time. Id.
`
`Subtraction of an estimated noise signal is performed by filter multiplication, and
`
`residual noise reduction is employed to further reduce noise after subtracting the
`
`estimated noise signal. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Of The Prosecution History Of The ’345 Patent
`
`The U.S. Patent Application 09/252,874, which led to the ’345 patent, was
`
`filed on February 18, 1999, and issued on March 26, 2002.1 Exs. 1001, 1020 at
`
`RTL345-1_1020-0175. The application entitled “System, Method and Apparatus
`
`
`
` Additionally, published International Application No. PCT/US00/03538, filed on
`
` 1
`
`February 11, 2000, claims the benefit of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/252,874.
`
`Ex. 1021.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`4
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`for Cancelling Noise,” lists its inventors as Joseph Marash and Baruch Berdugo.
`
`Ex. 1020 at RTL345-1_1020-0007. On November 1, 2000, the Examiner issued a
`
`Non-Final Rejection requiring a legible copy of a May 23, 2000 IDS, and
`
`provisionally rejected all claims for non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting
`
`over then co-pending Application 09/385,966. Id. at RTL345-1_1020-0100-103.
`
`On March 16, 2001, the Applicant filed a duplicate copy of the previously filed IDS,
`
`and requested reconsideration. Id. at RTL345-1_1020-0110. On May 29, 2001, the
`
`Examiner issued a Final Rejection based on the prior untraversed double patenting
`
`rejection. Id. at RTL345-1_1020-0128-132. On June 7, 2001, the Applicant filed an
`
`Amendment traversing the double patenting rejection by noting that Application
`
`09/385,966 had been abandoned. Id. at RTL345-1_1020-0136. The Examiner then
`
`issued a further Non-Final Rejection on June 28, 2001, rejecting all claims under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs, as being indefinite or non-enabled. Id. at
`
`RTL345-1_1020-0138-142. On September 28, 2001, the Applicant filed an
`
`Amendment to overcome this rejection, which was accepted. Id. at RTL345-
`
`1_1020-0144-158. The Examiner subsequently issued a Notice of Allowance on
`
`October 9, 2001. Id. at RTL345-1_1020-0159-161.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Broadest Reasonable Construction
`
`Unless otherwise addressed herein, for the purposes of inter partes review
`
`only, the terms of ’345 patent’s claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`5
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`interpretation, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the ’345
`
`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 ’345 patent under 35 USC § 112 in federal district court
`
`or in an action before the International Trade Commission.
`
`VI. PRIOR ART TO THE ’345 PATENT FORMING THE BASIS FOR
`THIS PETITION
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Documents
`
`H. G. Hirsch and C. Ehricher, “Noise estimation techniques for robust speech
`
`recognition,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, Signal Processing, vol. 1,
`
`pp. 153 -156, 1995 (“Hirsch”) (Ex. 1022 at RTL345-1_1022-1-4) was published in
`
`the United States in 1995. As a result, Hirsch is available as prior art against all
`
`claims of the ’345 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Rainer Martin, “An Efficient Algorithm to Estimate the Instantaneous SNR of
`
`Speech Signals,” Proc. Eurospeech, pp. 1093-96, 1993 (“Martin”) (Ex. 1023 at
`
`RTL345-1_1023-1-4) was published in the United States in 1993. As a result,
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`6
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`Martin is available as prior art against all claims of the ’345 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`Steven F. Boll, “Suppression of Acoustic Noise in Speech Using Spectral
`
`Subtraction,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Vol.
`
`ASSP-27, No. 2, April 1979 (“Boll”) (Ex. 1024 at RTL345-1_1024-1-8) was
`
`published in the United States in 1979. As a result, Boll is available as prior art
`
`against all claims of the ’345 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,459,683 (“Uesugi”) (Ex. 1025) was published in the United
`
`States on October 17, 1995. As a result, Uesugi is available as prior art against all
`
`claims of the ’345 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,035,048 (“Diethorn”) (Ex. 1026) was filed on June 18,
`
`1997. Therefore, Diethorn is available as prior art against all claims of the ’345
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,651,071 (“Lindemann”) (Ex. 1027) was published in the
`
`United States on July 22, 1997. Therefore, Lindemann is available as prior art
`
`against all claims of the ’345 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,185,168 (“Graupe”) (Ex. 1028) was published in the United
`
`States on January 22, 1980. Therefore, Graupe is available as prior art against all
`
`claims of the ’345 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Although Boll was disclosed to the USPTO in an IDS during prosecution of
`
`the ’345 patent, none of the references relied upon in this Petition were cited as a
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`7
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`reference in any rejection during prosecution of the ’345 Patent. Ex. 1020 at
`
`RTL345-1_1020-0099.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Of Unpatentability Arguments
`
`The alleged novel features of the ’345 patent were well known at the time of
`
`the alleged invention and it would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art that they could be used separately, or combined into a single system to
`
`obtain the advantages of these various features.
`
`For example, Hirsch and Graupe both describe systems which take an input
`
`signal containing noise and divide it into frequency bands or bins. Ex. 1022 at pp.
`
`153, 155 (RTL345-1_1022-1, 3); Ex. 1028, Fig. 2, claim 1. Both of these references
`
`also estimate the noise in the signal through use of a threshold for each frequency
`
`bin, which allows for the detection of non-speech or noise areas of the signal in
`
`order to create a noise estimate for use in noise reduction. Ex. 1022 at p. 153
`
`(RTL345-1_1022-1); Ex. 1028 at 2:44-50; 4:64-5:18; Fig. 3.
`
`Furthermore, Martin discloses a method of estimating the noise level in a
`
`noisy speech input signal by tracking the minimum power level of the input signal,
`
`which is identical to the method of the ’345 patent except for its use of signal and
`
`noise power rather than magnitude. Ex. 1023 at p. 1093 (RTL345-1_1023-1).
`
`However, it would have been obvious to apply Martin to signal magnitude. Id.,
`
`Introduction.
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`8
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`Boll describes methods for reducing the amount of noise in a speech audio
`
`signal based on subtracting the noise spectrum from the signal spectrum (spectral
`
`subtraction). Id. at p. 114 (RTL345-1_1024-2). In particular, Boll implements
`
`spectral subtraction via a filter function that preserves the phase of the spectral
`
`signal to facilitate reconstruction of an enhanced speech signal. Id. Boll also
`
`includes methods for reducing residual noise and explicitly uses a Fast Fourier
`
`Transform (FFT) implementation. Id. at pp. 114-115; 116-117; Fig. 3 (RTL345-
`
`1_1024-2-5).
`
`Uesugi describes an efficient method of calculating a square root of two
`
`squares, which is employed in the ’345 patent. Ex. 1025 at 4:26-42. The
`
`mathematical method used in Uesugi was well-known; the Uesugi reference clearly
`
`describes this method and notes its association with digital signal processing. Id. at
`
`1:14-22. This method is simply to approximate the expression √𝐴2 + 𝐵2 as a
`
`function min(|𝐴|, |𝐵|) and max(|𝐴|, |𝐵|). Id. This is a common signal processing
`
`operation and is used in the calculation of the magnitude of a complex number
`
`𝐴 + 𝐵𝑖. Id.
`
`Diethorn describes a noise suppression system for removing noise from a
`
`noisy speech signal. Ex. 1026, Title, Abstract. Diethorn provides a clear
`
`description of signal smoothing, which smoothes for each subband and between
`
`subbands, i.e., two-dimensional smoothing. Ex. 1026 at 6:7-11; 7:17-20.
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`9
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`Finally, Lindemann also discloses such a two-dimensional smoothing process
`
`in the context of reducing noise in a binaural hearing aid signal. Ex. 1027, Abstract.
`
`Lindemann teaches a frequency band-smoothing process as well as a temporal
`
`smoothing process. Ex. 1027 at 8:47-55; Fig. 3B; 9:27-29; Fig. 4.
`
`In short, the ’345 Patent claims no inventive matter and discloses no novel
`
`signal processing technology or techniques to cancel interference signals related to
`
`the same. Instead, the ’345 Patent merely aggregates matter that was already well-
`
`known to those of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. To the extent
`
`that any element can be argued as “novel,” it is a predictable and obvious
`
`application of known techniques disclosed in the closely-related field of signal
`
`processing and noise suppression for precisely the same purposes disclosed in that
`
`art, namely to reduce noise or interference in a digital audio signal. In light of the
`
`disclosures detailed below, the claims of the ’345 patent are unpatentable because
`
`they are anticipated or rendered obvious by at least eight prior art references.
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 12, 13, 21 And 38 Are Unpatentable Under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) As Being Anticipated By Hirsch.
`
`The features in claims 1-3, 12, 13, 21, and 38 are unpatentable as being
`
`anticipated by Hirsch. Hirsch describes two methods of estimating noise present in
`
`a noisy speech signal. The first method of generating a noise estimate is most
`
`relevant to the ’345 Patent. In that method, the noise level is estimated in multiple
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`10
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`spectral subbands to produce a continually updated noise estimate for each subband.
`
`The noise estimate is then used in spectral subtraction to reduce the noise in the
`
`speech signal. Ex. 1022 at pp. 153-154 (RTL345-1_1022-1-2). Finally, the
`
`effectiveness of the noise estimation and of the speech enhancement was evaluated
`
`by listening tests and by performing automatic speech recognition on the enhanced
`
`speech. Id. at pp. 155-156. See Ex. 1030, Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 38-40.
`
`The Hirsch noise estimation procedure estimates “the spectral parameters of
`
`noise without an explicit speech pause detection.” Ex. 1022 at p. 153 (RTL345-
`
`1_1022-1). The noisy signal is divided into subbands and an estimate of the noise
`
`level in each subband is found by averaging the magnitude values of the noisy input
`
`signal in that subband that represent noise samples. Id. at Introduction (RTL345-
`
`1_1022-1). Input samples are identified as noise samples as a result of comparing
`
`the current spectral magnitude sample in each spectral bin with a threshold that is
`
`based on the previous noise estimate for that bin. Id. at Estimation of Noise
`
`Spectrum (RTL345-1_1022-1). Spectral magnitude samples that exceed the
`
`threshold are assumed to contain speech, and those that do not exceed the threshold
`
`are determined to represent noise. Id. at pp. 153-154, §§ 2, 3 (RTL345-1_1022-1-
`
`2).
`
`
`
`In light of the above, the table below demonstrates how each limitation of
`
`claims 1-3, 12, 13, 21, and 38 of the ’345 Patent is anticipated by Hirsch.
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`11
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`Claim Element
`1. An apparatus for
`canceling noise, comprising:
`
`1a. an input for inputting an
`audio signal which includes
`a noise signal;
`
`1b. a frequency spectrum
`generator for generating the
`frequency spectrum of said
`audio signal thereby
`generating frequency bins of
`said audio signal; and
`
`Hirsch
`
`Hirsch teaches:
`“Two new techniques are presented to estimate the
`noise spectra or the noise characteristics for noisy
`speech signals. . .This techniques can be combined
`with a nonlinear spectral subtraction scheme.”
`(Emphasis added). Ex. 1022 at p. 153, Abstract
`(RTL345-1_1022-1). See also Ex. 1030, Anderson
`Decl., ¶¶ 41-50.
`Hirsch teaches:
`“The first method presented here calculates the
`weighted sum of past spectral magnitude values Xi
`in each subband i. The weighting is done by a
`simple first order recursive system
`𝑁̂𝑖(𝑘) = (1 − α) ∗ 𝑋𝑖(𝑘) + α ∗ 𝑁̂𝑖(𝑘 − 1)
`where Xi(k) denotes the spectral magnitude at time
`k in subband i and 𝑵̂ 𝒊(𝒌) is an estimation of the
`noise magnitude.” (Emphasis added). Ex. 1022 at
`p. 153, “Estimation of Noise Spectrum” (RTL345-
`1_1022-1).
`
`“This contribution presents two methods to
`estimate the spectral parameters of noise without an
`explicit speech pause detection.” Ex. 1022 at p.
`153, “Introduction.” (RTL345-1_1022-1).
`
`“Two new techniques are presented to
`estimate the noise spectra or the noise
`characteristics for noisy speech signals. . . This
`techniques can be combined with a nonlinear
`spectral subtraction scheme.” (Emphasis added).
`Ex. 1022 at p. 153, “Abstract” (RTL345-1_1022-
`1). See also Ex. 1030, Anderson Decl., ¶ 42.
`Hirsch teaches:
`“The first algorithm calculates the noise level in
`each subband as a weighted average of past
`spectral magnitude values which are below an
`adaptive threshold.” (Emphasis added.) Ex. 1022
`at p. 153, “Introduction” (RTL345-1_1022-1).
`“Using a FFT filter bank with 128 subbands
`frames.” (Emphasis added.) Ex. 1022 at p. 155,
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`12
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`Claim Element
`
`Hirsch
`
`“Recognition of Noisex Data.” (RTL345-1_1022-
`3)
`“The first algorithm calculates the noise
`
`level in each subband as a weighted average of
`past spectral magnitude values which are below an
`adaptive threshold.” (Emphasis added.) Ex. 1022
`at p. 153, “Introduction” (RTL345-1_1022-1).
`“The first method presented here calculates the
`weighted sum of past spectral magnitude values
`𝑿𝒊 in each subband i. The weighting is done by a
`simple first order recursive system
`𝑁̂𝑖(𝑘) = (1 − α) ∗ 𝑋𝑖(𝑘) + α ∗ 𝑁̂𝑖(𝑘 − 1)
`where 𝑋𝑖(𝑘) denotes the spectral magnitude at time
`k in subband i and 𝑵𝒊(𝒌) is an estimation of the
`noise magnitude.” (Emphases added.) Ex. 1022 at
`p. 153, “Estimation of Noise Spectrum” (RTL345-
`1_1022-1).
`See also Ex. 1030, Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 43-45.
`Hirsch teaches:
`“The first algorithm calculates the noise level in
`each subbands as a weighted average of past
`spectral magnitude values which are below an
`adaptive threshold.” (Emphasis added). Ex. 1022
`at p. 153, “Introduction” (RTL345-1_1022-1).
`“The weighting is done by a simple first order
`recursive system
`𝑁̂𝑖(𝑘) = (1 − α) ∗ 𝑋𝑖(𝑘) + α ∗ 𝑁̂𝑖(𝑘 − 1)
`where Xi(k) denotes the spectral magnitude at time
`k in subband i and 𝑵̂ 𝒊(𝒌) is an estimation of the
`noise magnitude.
` . . .
`Thus a threshold 𝛽 ∗ 𝑁̂𝑖(𝑘 − 1) is
`
`introduced where β takes a value in the range of
`about 1,5 to 2,5. When the actual spectral
`component 𝑿𝒊(𝒌) exceeds this threshold this is
`considered as a rough detection of speech and the
`recursive accumulation is stopped. The
`accumulated value is taken as an estimation for
`
`1c. a threshold detector for
`setting a threshold for each
`frequency bin using a noise
`estimation process and for
`detecting for each frequency
`bin whether the magnitude
`of the frequency bin is less
`than the corresponding
`threshold, thereby detecting
`the position of noise
`elements for each frequency
`bin.
`
`IPR2015-01394
`
`13
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`Claim Element
`
`Hirsch
`
`