UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2015-01395
`
`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 ......................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’345 Patent ......................................... 4
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’345 Patent ..................... 4
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`Standards for Claim Construction ........................................................ 6
`
`1.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Construction ............................................. 6
`
`VI. PRIOR ART TO THE ’345 PATENT FORMING THE BASIS FOR
`THIS PETITION ............................................................................................. 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Documents ............................................................................ 7
`
`Summary of Unpatentability Arguments ............................................. 8
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM ..................... 10
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 12, 21, 23, And 24 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) As Being Anticipated By
`U.S. Patent No. 6,035,048 Diethorn. ................................................. 10
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 4-11, 13, 25, 38-42 And 46 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Diethorn
`In View Of Martin. ............................................................................. 16
`
`Ground 3: Claims 13-20, 38, And 47 are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Diethorn In View
`Of Boll. ............................................................................................... 28
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 21-24 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`As Being Obvious Over Diethorn In View Of Uesugi And/Or
`Lindemann. ........................................................................................ 34
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 43 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`As Being Obvious Over Diethorn And Martin, And Further
` In View Of Boll. ................................................................................ 39
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`i
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6: Claims 44 And 45 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Diethorn And Martin,
`And Further In View Of Uesugi. ....................................................... 41
`
`G. Ground 7: Claims 1-11, 13, 25, 38-41 And 46 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Martin. .............. 43
`
`H. Ground 8: Claims 12, 14-20, 42, 43, And 47 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Martin In View
`Of Boll. ............................................................................................... 51
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Ground 9: Claims 21, 22, 23, 44, And 45 are Unpatentable Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Martin In View Of
`Uesugi. ............................................................................................... 56
`
`Ground 10: Claim 24 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`As Being Obvious Over Martin And Uesugi, And Further
`In View Of Diethorn Or Lindemann. ................................................. 58
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`

`
`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., 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
`
`Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Civil Action No.
`
`1010
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`iii
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit #
`
`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)
`
`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
`
`PCT Application No. PCT/US00/03538, “System, Method and
`Apparatus For Cancelling Noise,” to Joseph Marash and Baruch
`Berdugo, Publication No. WO 00/49602 issued on Aug. 24, 2000
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`iv
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`Description
`
`(“PCT/US00/03538”
`
`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”)
`
`Exhibit #
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`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”)
`
`1025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,651,071, “Noise Reduction System For Binaural
`Hearing Aid,” to Eric Lindermann and John Laurence Melanson,
`issued on Jul. 22, 1997 (“Lindemann”)
`
`Alan V. Oppenheim and Ronald W. Schafer, “Digital Signal
`Processing” (Prentice Hall, 1975) pp. 542–545
`
`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)
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`v
`
`

`
`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, and 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
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`1
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`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. 1029.
`
`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 five 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.
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`2
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`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;
`Realtek345IPR@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. 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.
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`3
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`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 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
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`4
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`filed on February 18, 1999, and issued on March 26, 2002.1 Exs. 1001, 1020 at
`
`RTL345-2_1020-0175. The application entitled “System, Method and Apparatus
`
`for Cancelling Noise,” lists its inventors as Joseph Marash and Baruch Berdugo.
`
`Ex. 1020 at RTL345-2_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 RTL345-2_1020-
`
`0100-103. On March 16, 2001, the Applicant filed a duplicate copy of the
`
`previously filed IDS, and requested reconsideration. Id. at RTL345-2_1020-0110.
`
`On May 29, 2001, the Examiner issued a Final Rejection based on the prior
`
`untraversed double patenting rejection. Id. at RTL345-2_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
`
`RTL345-2_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 RTL345-2_1020-0138-142.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Additionally, published International Application No. PCT/US00/03538, filed on
`
`February 11, 2000, claims the benefit of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/252,874.
`
`Ex. 1021.
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`5
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`On September 28, 2001, the Applicant filed an Amendment to overcome this
`
`rejection, which was accepted. Id. at RTL345-2_1020-0144-158. The Examiner
`
`subsequently issued a Notice of Allowance on October 9, 2001. Id. at RTL345-
`
`2_1020-0159-161.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Standards for Claim Construction
`
`1.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`6
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`VI. PRIOR ART TO THE ’345 PATENT FORMING THE BASIS FOR
`THIS PETITION
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Documents
`
`Rainer Martin, “An Efficient Algorithm to Estimate the Instantaneous SNR
`
`of Speech Signals,” Proc. Eurospeech, pp. 1093-96, 1993 (“Martin”) (Ex. 1022 at
`
`RTL345-2_1022-1-4) was published in the United States in 1993. As a result,
`
`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. 1023 at RTL345-2_1023-1-8) 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. 1024) 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. 1025) 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).
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`7
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,651,071 (“Lindemann”) (Ex. 1026) 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).
`
`Although Boll was disclosed to the USPTO in an IDS during prosecution,
`
`none of the references relied upon in this Petition were cited by the Examiner
`
`during prosecution of the ’345 Patent.
`
`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.
`
`In the main, both Diethorn and Martin describe systems which take an input
`
`signal containing noise and divide it into frequency bands or bins. Both of these
`
`references also estimate the noise position in the signal through use of a threshold,
`
`which allows for the detection of non-speech or noise areas of the signal.
`
`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. 1022 at p. 1093 (RTL345-2_1022-1).
`
`However, it would have been obvious to apply Martin to signal magnitude. Ex.
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`8
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`1022 at p. 1093, Introduction (RTL345-2_1022-1).
`
`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). Ex. 1023 at p. 114 (RTL345-2_1023-2). 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 114-115; 116-117; Fig. 3 (RTL345-
`
`2_1023-2-5).
`
`Uesugi describes an efficient method of calculating a square root of two
`
`squares, which is employed in the ’345 patent. Ex. 1024 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. Ex. 1024 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. 1025, Title, Abstract. Diethorn provides a clear
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`9
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`description of signal smoothing, which smoothes for each subband and between
`
`subbands, i.e., two-dimensional smoothing. Ex. 1025 at 6:7-11; 7:17-20.
`
`Finally, Lindemann also discloses such a two-dimensional smoothing
`
`process in the context of reducing noise in a binaural hearing aid signal. Ex. 1026,
`
`Abstract. Lindemann teaches a frequency band-smoothing process as well as a
`
`temporal smoothing process. Ex. 1026 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, 21, 23, And 24 Are Unpatentable Under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) As Being Anticipated By U.S. Patent No.
`6,035,048 Diethorn.
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`10
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`The features in claims 1-3, 12, 21, 23 and 24 are unpatentable as being
`
`anticipated by Diethorn. See also, Ex. 1028, Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 38-77.
`
`Diethorn describes a system for enhancing an audio signal corrupted with
`
`noise. Ex. 1025 at 3:49-52; 4:25-29. The Diethorn system divides input noisy
`
`speech into subbands, estimates and smoothes the signal and noise in each
`
`subband, and uses the smoothed signal and noise values to determine a gain that is
`
`applied to each subband prior to recombination. Ex. 1025, Abstract; Figure 2; see
`
`also Ex. 1028, Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 38-39.
`
`
`
`In light of the above, the table below demonstrates how each limitation of
`
`claims 1-3, 12, 21, 23 and 24 of the ’345 Patent are anticipated by Diethorn.
`
`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;
`
`Diethorn
`
`Diethorn teaches:
`“I believe that through the use of my invention, noise
`in the speech channels of various kinds of
`telecommunication equipment can be efficiently
`reduced, and improved subjective audio quality can
`thereby be efficiently achieved.” (Emphasis added).
`Ex. 1025 at 3:49-52.
`“Each of these processing stages is conveniently
`carried out by a general-purpose digital computer,
`such as a desktop personal computer, under the control
`of an appropriate stored program or programs.” Ex.
`1025 at 5:13-17.
`Ex. 1028, Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 40-54.
`Diethorn teaches:
`“In the following discussion, the signal x(i) that is to
`be enhanced is referred to for convenience as "noisy
`speech," although not only speech, but also other
`audible signals are advantageously enhanced
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`11
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`Claim Element
`
`Diethorn
`
`1b. a frequency spectrum
`generator for generating
`the frequency spectrum of
`said audio signal thereby
`generating frequency bins
`of said audio signal; and
`
`according to the present invention.” (Emphasis
`added). Ex. 1025 at 4:25-29. See also Ex. 1028,
`Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 40-43.
`Diethorn teaches:
`“As shown in Fig. 3, the operations of the sub-band
`analysis stage can be described in terms of
`accumulator 130, analysis window 140, and Fast
`Fourier Transform (FFT) 150.” (Emphasis added).
`Ex. 1025 at 5:31-34.
`
`
`Ex. 1025, Fig. 3, elements 130, 140, and 150
`(annotated).
`
`
`Ex. 1025, Fig. 2, element 40 (annotated).
`See also Ex. 1028, Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 44-48.
`Diethorn teaches:
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`12
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`Claim Element
`the corresponding
`threshold, thereby
`detecting the position of
`noise elements for each
`frequency bin.
`
`2. The apparatus according
`to claim 1, wherein said
`threshold detector detects
`the position of a plurality
`of non-speech data points
`for said frequency bins.
`
`3. The apparatus according
`to claim 2, wherein said
`threshold detector detects
`the position of said
`plurality of non-speech
`data points for said
`frequency bins within a
`continuous speech
`segment of said audio
`signal.
`
`Diethorn
`
`Ex. 1025, Fig. 5, elements 5.1, 5.5 (annotated).
`“The updating of the noise estimate is advantageously
`conditioned on a test (block 5.5) of whether the
`magnitude of the new data sample c(k,m) is less than
`the current value of the noise estimate, times a
`multiplier T. This condition prevents the noise
`estimate from being unduly biased (upward) by
`samples whose magnitudes are high enough that they
`assuredly represent speech or other non-stationary
`signal energy.” (Emphasis added). Ex. 1025 at 6:38-
`48. See also Ex. 1028, Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 49-54.
`Diethorn teaches:
`“The updating of the noise estimate is advantageously
`conditioned on a test (block 5.5) of whether the
`magnitude of the new data sample c(k,m) is less than
`the current value of the noise estimate, times a
`multiplier T. This condition prevents the noise
`estimate from being unduly biased (upward) by
`samples whose magnitudes are high enough that they
`assuredly represent speech or other non-stationary
`signal energy.” (Emphasis added). Ex. 1025 at 6:38-
`48; see also Fig. 5 element 5.5. See also Ex. 1028,
`Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 55-58.
`Diethorn teaches:
`“This condition prevents the noise estimate from being
`unduly biased (upward) by samples whose magnitudes
`are high enough that they assuredly represent speech
`or other non-stationary signal energy.” Ex. 1025 at
`6:38-48; see also Fig. 5 element 5.5.
`
`See also Ex. 1028, Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 59-62.
`
`12. The apparatus
`according to claim 1,
`further comprising an
`averaging unit for
`
`Diethorn teaches:
`“As shown graphically in FIG. 5, the noise estimate
`n(k,m) in each sub-band is computed (block 5.1) using
`the following non-linear single-pole recursion:
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`13
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`Claim Element
`determining a level of said
`noise within said
`respective frequency bin,
`wherein said threshold
`detector detects the
`position of said noise
`elements where said level
`of said noise determined
`by said averaging unit is
`less than the
`corresponding threshold.
`21. The apparatus
`according to claim 1,
`further comprising an
`estimator for estimating a
`magnitude of each
`frequency bin.
`
`Diethorn
`
`
`
`𝑛(𝑘, 𝑚) = 𝐵 𝑛(𝑘, 𝑚 − 1) + (1 − 𝐵)|𝑐(𝑘, 𝑚)|”
`
`
`(Emphasis added). Ex. 1025 at 6:22-27; see also Fig.
`5.
`
`See also Ex. 1028, Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 63-68.
`
`Diethorn teaches:
`
`Ex. 1025, Fig. 4 (annotated).
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1025, Fig. 5 (annotated).
`
`“As shown graphically in FIG. 4, the signal estimate
`s(k,m) in each sub-band is computed (block 4.1) using
`the following non-linear single-pole recursion:
`𝒔(𝒌, 𝒎) = 𝑨 𝒔(𝒌, 𝒎 − 𝟏) + (𝟏 − 𝑨)|𝒄(𝒌, 𝒎)|.
`The value of the coefficient A is determined by
`
`a test (block 4.2) of whether the magnitude of the
`new data sample c(k,m) is greater, or not greater,
`than the current value of the signal estimate.”
`(Emphasis added). Ex. 1025 at 6:7-16. See also Ex.
`
`IPR2015-01395
`
`14
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`Claim Element
`
`23. The apparatus
`according to claim 21,
`further comprising a
`smoothing unit which
`smoothes the estimate of
`each frequency bin.
`
`24. The apparatus
`according to claim 23,
`wherein said smoothing
`unit comprises a two-
`dimensional process which
`averages each frequency
`bin in accordance with
`neighboring frequency
`bins and averages each
`frequency bin using an
`exponential time average
`which effects an average
`over a plurality of
`frequency bins over time.
`
`Diethorn
`
`1028, Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 69-71.
`Diethorn teaches:
`“As shown graphically in FIG. 4, the signal estimate
`s(k,m) in each sub-band is computed (block 4.1) using
`the following non-linear single-pole recursion:
`𝒔(𝒌, 𝒎) = 𝑨 𝒔(𝒌, 𝒎 − 𝟏) + (𝟏 − 𝑨)|𝒄(𝒌, 𝒎)|.
`The value of the coefficient A is determined by
`
`a test (block 4.2) of whether the magnitude of the
`new data sample c(k,m) is greater, or not greater,
`than the current value of the signal estimate.”
`(Emphases added). Ex. 1025 at 6:7-16.
`See also Ex. 1028, Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 72-73.
`Time smoothing:
`“As shown graphically in FIG. 4, the signal estimate
`s(k,m) in each sub-band is computed (block 4.1) using
`the following non-linear single-pole recursion:
`𝒔(𝒌, 𝒎) = 𝑨 𝒔(𝒌, 𝒎 − 𝟏) + (𝟏 − 𝑨)|𝒄(𝒌, 𝒎)|.
`The value of the coefficient A is determined by
`
`a test (block 4.2) of whether the magnitude of the
`new data sample c(k,m) is greater, or not greater,
`than the current value of the signal estimate.”
`(Emphases added). (Emphasis added). Ex. 1025 at
`6:7-16.
`Frequency smoothing:
`“I have found that for detection of broadband energy,
`it is advantageous to combine, in a certain sense, the
`results of two or more narrowband deflection ratios.
`That is, a lumped broadband deflection coefficient is
`advantageously computed by taking an arithmetic
`average of 2K+l narrowband deflection coefficient