UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SAINT LAWRENCE COMMUNICATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2015-01874
`
`Patent 7,151,802
`_______________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,151,802
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8....................1
`I.
`PAYMENT OF FEES (§ 42.103)...................................................................2
`II.
`STANDING (§ 42.104(a))..............................................................................2
`III.
`IV. REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................................................2
`A.
`Technology Background ......................................................................2
`B.
`Alleged Invention Of The ’802 Patent.................................................7
`C.
`The Claims Of The ’802 Patent............................................................8
`D.
`Knowledge of a Person of Skill in the Art ...........................................9
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .........................................................................10
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’802 PATENT FORMING
`THE BASES FOR THIS PETITION ...........................................................11
`A.
`Admitted Prior Art..............................................................................11
`B.
`A 13.0 kbit/s wideband speech codec based on SB-ACELP
`(“Schnitzler”)......................................................................................12
`Reconstruction of Wideband Audio from Narrowband CELP
`Code (“Tasaki 1994”).........................................................................12
`16 kbit/s Wideband Speech Coding Based On Unequal
`Subbands (“Paulus”)...........................................................................13
`VII. TERMINOLOGY.........................................................................................13
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY FOR EACH CLAIM .................13
`A.
`Ground 1: Schnitzler in View of Tasaki 1994 Renders Obvious
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40,
`49, 50, 52, And 53 ..............................................................................14
`1.
`Schnitzler in view of Tasaki 1994 renders obvious claims
`1, 9, 25, 33, 49, 50, 52, and 53.................................................14
`Schnitzler In View Of Tasaki Also Renders Obvious
`Claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 16, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, And 40 .............27
`i
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`2.
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`B.
`
`Page
`Motivation to Combine Schnitzler with Tasaki 1994.............31
`3.
`Ground 2: Schnitzler In View Of the Knowledge of a Person of
`Skill in the Art Renders Obvious Claims 1, 9, 25, 33, 49, 50,
`52, And 53 ..........................................................................................35
`Ground 3: Schnitzler In View Of the Knowledge of a Person of
`Skill in the Art Further In View Of Paulus Render Obvious
`Claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 16, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, And 40 .......................39
`1.
`Motivation To Combine Schnitzler With Paulus.....................39
`Claim Chart Supporting Grounds For Unpatentability......................41
`D.
`IX. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................60
`
`C.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,151,802
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 7,151,802
`Complaint filed in District Court Cases
`J. Schnitzler, A, “13.0 KBIT/S Wideband Speech Codec Based on SB-
`ACELP,” IEEE, pp. 157-160 (1998)
`J. Paulus and J. Schnizaler, “16 KBIT/S Wideband Speech Coding
`Based on Unequal Subbands,” IEEE, pp. 255-258 (1996)
`J. Paulus and J. Schnizaler, “Wideband Speech Coding for the GSM
`Fullrate Channel,” ITG-Fachtagung Sprachkommunikation, pp. 11-14,
`September 1996
`ITU-T Recommencation G.729, “Coding of Speech at 8 kbit/s Using
`Conjugate-Structure Algebraic-Code-Excited Linear-Prediction (CS-
`ACELP),” March 1996
`GSM Enhanced Full Rate (EFR) Speech Transcoding (GSM 06.60)
`(1996)
`Honkanen, T., et al., “Enhanced Full Rate Speech Codec for IS-136
`Digital Cellular System,” IEEE, pp. 731-734 (1997)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,455,888 (“Iyengar”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,797,120 (“Ireton”)
`Atal, B. and Remde, J., “A New Model of LPC Extension for
`Producing Natural-Sounding Speech at Low Bit Rates,” IEEE, pp.
`614-617 (1982)
`Spanias, A., “Speech Coding: A Tutorial Review,” Proceedings of the
`IEEE, 82(10):1539-82 (1994)
`Federal Coding Standard 1016 (February 14, 1991)
`ITU-T Recommencation G.728, “Coding of Speech at 16 kbit/s Using
`Low-Delay Code Excited Linear Prediction,” September 1992
`Schroeder, M. and Atal, B, “Code-Excited Linear Prediction
`(CELP): High Quality Speech at Very Low Bit Rates,” IEEE, pp. 937-
`940 (1985)
`Tasaki, H., et al., “Reconstruction of Wideband Audio from
`Narrowband CELP Code,” Acoustical Society of Japan, pp. 249-252
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`(1994)
`ITU G.722.2 Series G: Transmission Systems and Media, Digital
`Systems and Networks (2002)
`Oppenheim and Schafer, Discrete-Time Signal Processing, pp. 17-33
`(1989)
`Kroon, P., “Regular-Pulse Excitation – A Novel Approach to Effective
`and Efficient Multipulse Coding of Speech,” IEEE Transactions on
`Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 34(5):1054-1063 (1986)
`Chan, W., et al., “Enhanced Multistage Vector Quantization by Joint
`Codebook Design,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and
`Signal Processing, 40(11):1693-1697 (1992)
`Singhai, S. and A. Bishnu, “Improving Performance of Multi-Pulse
`LPC Coders at Low Bit Rates,” IEEE, pp. 1.3.1-1.3.4 (1984)
`Ramachandran, R. and Kabal, R., “Pitch Prediction Filters in Speech
`Coding,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
`Processing, 37(4):467-478 (1989)
`Atal, B. and Schroeder, M., “Predictive Coding of Speech Signals and
`Subjective Error Coding,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech,
`and Signal Processing, 27(3):247-254 (1979)
`Rabiner, L., “On the Use of Autocorrelation Analysis for Pitch
`Detection,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
`Processing, 25(1):24-33 (1977)
`Kleijn, W. and Ketchum, R., “Improved Speech Quality and Efficient
`Vector Quantization in SELP,” IEEE, pp. 155-158 (1988)
`Marques, J, et al., “Improved Pitch Predication With Factional Delays
`in CELP Coding,” Filters in Speech Coding,” IEEE, 665-668 (1990)
`Chen, J., and Gersho, A., “Adaptive Postfiltering for Quality
`Enhancement of Coded Speech,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics,
`Speech, and Signal Processing, 3(1), pp. 59-71 (1995)
`ITU G.722 – General Aspects of Digital Transmission Systems
`Terminal Equipments (1988)
`Cheng, Y., et al., “Statistical Recovery of Wideband Speech From
`Narrowband Speech,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and
`Signal Processing, 2(4):544-548 (1994) (“Cheng”)
`Ordentlich, E. and Shoham, Y., “Low-Delay Code-Excited Linear-
`Predictive Coding of Wideband Speech at 32 KBPS,” IEEE, pp. 9-12
`(1991)
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`Avendano, C., et al., “Beyond Nyquist: Towards the Recovery of
`Broad-Bandwidth Speech from Narrow-Bandwidth Speech,”
`Eurospeech, 95 (1995)
`Foodeei, M, “Low-Delay Speech Coding at 16 kb/s and Below ,” (May
`1991) (“Foodeei”)
`Odentlich, E., “Low Delay – Code Excited Linear Predictive (LD-
`CELP) Coding of Wide Band Speech at 32kbits/sec,” Massachusetts
`Institute of Technology, pp. 1-132 (1990)
`Declaration of Michael Johnson
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, Petitioner hereby respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-3, 8-11, 16, 25-27, 32-35, 40, 49-50, and 52-53 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,151,802 (“the ’802 Patent”)(Ex. 1001), which issued on December 19,
`
`2006 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest. LG Electronic USA, Inc. and LG Electronics
`
`Alabama, Inc. are real parties-in-interest with Petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters—§42.8(b)(2). The ’802 Patent is the subject of a patent
`
`infringement
`
`lawsuit
`
`in the E.D. Tex., No. 1:14-cv-1055, Saint Lawrence
`
`Communications LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., et. al. See also Ex. 1003. The ’802
`
`Patent claims priority to the same foreign application as U.S. Patent No.7,260,521.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel.
`
`Robert G. Pluta (lead)
`Registration No. 50,970
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`Tel:312-701-8641; Fax:312-701-7711
`Amanda K. Streff (back-up)
`Registration No. 65,224
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`Tel: 312-701-8645
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Baldine Paul (back-up)
`Registration No. 54,369
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: 202-263-3000
`Fax: 202-263-3300
`
`D.
`
`Service Information—§42.8(b)(4). Petitioner consents to electronic
`
`service by email
`
`to rpluta@mayerbrown.com, bpaul@mayerbrown.com, and
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`astreff@mayerbrown.com, with a copy sent to STLIPR@mayerbrown.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES (§ 42.103)
`$25,000 has been charged to Deposit Account 130019. Any further fees
`
`required are authorized to be charged to the above-referenced Deposit Account.
`
`III.
`
`STANDING (§ 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the ’802 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`(IPR) and that it is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the ’802 Patent.
`
`IV. REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board find claims 1-3, 8-11, 16, 25-27, 32-35,
`
`40, 49-50, and 52-53 of the ’802 Patent unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Technology Background
`
`The principles of digital speech coding date back to the mid-1970s and
`
`nearly all speech coding technology is still based on these underlying principles in
`
`which a speech signal is analyzed and split into an excitation source and vocal tract
`
`filter component. See Ex. 1035, ¶30. As depicted in figure 1 below, the excitation
`
`source component represents the periodic vibration of the vocal cords while the
`
`vocal tract filter represents the frequency/filtering/shaping of the human vocal tract
`
`that gives speech sounds fundamental time and frequency characteristics. Id. ¶31.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`Speaker
`
`Vocal Tract
`Filtering
`
`Vocal Fold
`Excitation
`
`Vocal Tract Analysis
`
`Vocal Tract
`Parameters
`
`Excitation Parameters
`
`Vocal Tract Filter
`
`Reconstructed
`Signal
`
`Transmission
`or storage
`Figure 1 – Source filter model for speech coding and decoding.
`
`Decoder
`
`Encoder
`
`Figure 1 depicts how the source and filter components are separated at the encoder
`
`and then compressed separately using as few bits as possible for efficient
`
`transmission and storage. The speech signal is re-synthesized at the decoder by
`
`first reconstructing the excitation component and then passing it through the vocal
`
`tract filter. Id. ¶32.
`
`As described in Spanias’s 1994 overview paper, the first step is to divide the
`
`signal into frames or windows and encapsulate a small part of the signal containing
`
`approximately one speech component. Id. ¶33. Next,
`
`typically some initial
`
`processing is applied such as a pre-emphasis filter. Id. ¶¶33-34. After pre-
`
`processing,
`
`the representation of
`
`the vocal
`
`tract
`
`filter
`
`for each frame is
`
`accomplished using Linear Prediction Coding (LPC) analysis and then represented
`
`for transmission using LPC coefficients (or other related representations derived
`
`from those coefficients). Id. ¶35. The LPC coefficients are used to filter each
`
`speech signal frame to remove the vocal tract characteristics, giving a residual
`
`signal that represents the original excitation component. Id. ¶36.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`The remaining excitation component is difficult to represent compactly and
`
`significantly impacts the quality of the re-synthesized speech thus, the focus has
`
`been on finding a good excitation representation.
`
`Id. ¶37. One of the most
`
`common methods first published in 1984 is Code Excited Linear Prediction
`
`(CELP). Id. ¶38. Figure 2 below depicts Schroeder’s 1985 (Ex. 1016) CELP
`
`method, which introduces two basic techniques for encoding excitation effectively:
`
`1) the use of a vector quantization codebook to select stored excitation waveforms,
`
`which can be transmitted using a compact codeword, and 2) the use of an analysis-
`
`by-synthesis approach in the encoder to select the best codeword. Id. ¶39. For
`
`vector quantization. a number of different excitation signal vectors are stored in a
`
`simple pre-determined list (a codebook) that identifies them by an identifying entry
`
`number (a codeword). Id. ¶40. Rather than transmitting an entire signal, only the
`
`codeword needs to be transmitted, and can then be reconstructed at the decoder
`
`using a simple codebook look-up. Id. Analysis-by-synthesis essentially implements
`
`this search by building an extra decoder inside the encoder itself.
`
`Id. ¶41. The
`
`encoder implements an iterative loop, trying different excitation codewords or
`
`other coding parameters and using its internal decoder to measure the quality of the
`
`resulting signal, which it can easily do since it also has the original waveform
`
`available. Id. The best codewords and parameters are then selected to represent the
`
`signal, and are transmitted. Id.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`Speech
`Signal
`
`LPC
`Analysis
`
`Excitation
`Residual
`
`Analysis by Synthesis
`Perceptual error
`calculation
`
`Codebook
`
`LPC Parameters
`
`Selected
`Codeword
`
`Selection
`Loop
`Figure 2 Basic CELP encoder
`
`Variations on the basic CELP approach include the use of perceptual
`
`weighting to improve codeword selection quality and the subtraction of a long-
`
`term prediction excitation component based on pitch prediction using an adaptive
`
`codebook dating back to 1984. Id. ¶42. It is important to represent how accurately
`
`a listener perceives the reconstructed signal and one of the earliest and easiest ways
`
`to do that was by incorporating a simple perceptual weighting filter
`
`that
`
`emphasizes the frequency components that are most important to speech, prior to
`
`calculating error in the analysis-by-synthesis module. Id. ¶43.
`
`The excitation component to be represented by the innovation codebook
`
`actually includes several distinct
`
`types of excitation components such as the
`
`“voiced,” or pitch-related, and “unvoiced” contributions to the signal.
`
`Id. ¶44. It
`
`was known in 1984 that removing the periodic part of the signal corresponding to
`
`the pitch prior to using the innovation codebook can substantially reduce error. Id.
`
`To do this, it is necessary to implement a pitch search module to estimate the pitch
`
`period T and gain b (related to pitch strength), and then apply a basic shaping filter.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`Id. ¶¶44-48. The pitch period and pitch gain parameters are selected to minimize
`
`the squared error between the input excitation signal and the long-term prediction
`
`signal. Id. The long-term prediction signal is subtracted from the input excitation
`
`signal and passed to the innovation codebook, which then uses the analysis-by-
`
`synthesis criteria to search for the best innovation codeword. Id. ¶49.
`
`At the decoder, the CELP signal parameters are used to reconstruct each
`
`individual signal frame. Id. ¶50. The fixed excitation codeword is used as an index
`
`into the fixed codebook to find the excitation waveform, which is filtered using the
`
`long-term prediction filter to add the pitch contribution. Id. This final excitation
`
`signal is then filtered using the LPC coefficients (which are updated once for each
`
`longer
`
`full
`
`frame)
`
`to add vocal
`
`tract characteristics and re-create a close
`
`approximation to the original signal frame. Id. As it was done in 1994, the
`
`individual frames are then filtered to undo the initial pre-processing (e.g., pre-
`
`emphasis) and connected together for final continuous speech output. Id.
`
`The important content for speech signals is represented in the lower
`
`frequency range of 300-3000Hz. Id. ¶52. However, the higher frequency content
`
`contributes to higher quality sound. Id. ¶53. Bandwidth expansion is used to add
`
`the high frequency content back into the signal to increase sound quality. Id. ¶¶54-
`
`55. It was recognized that the general spectral shape of the higher frequency
`
`content of speech signals could be inferred from that of the lower frequency
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`content. Id. This allowed for some of the missing high frequency content of the
`
`speech signals to be added back in at the decoder, even though it was not
`
`represented by the transmitted information, in order to create a higher quality
`
`sound. Id. This is generally referred to as bandwidth extension as described by
`
`Cheng in 1994 and Avendana in 1995 (Ex. 1030, Cheng 1994; Ex. 1032,
`
`Avendano 1995) and can be accomplished in a simple manner by simply using the
`
`harmonic structure represented by the encoded LPC analysis or through a variety
`
`of more complex approaches that try to estimate the most likely spectral content of
`
`the higher frequency components. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Alleged Invention Of The ’802 Patent
`
`The ’802 Patent generally relates to well-known concepts of providing an
`
`efficient high frequency content
`
`recovery technique, closely related to the
`
`bandwidth extension concept described in the background section above. More
`
`specifically, the ’802 Patent relates to recovering the high frequency content of a
`
`wideband signal previously down-sampled, and for injecting this high frequency
`
`content in an over-sampled synthesized version of the down sampled wideband
`
`signal to produce a full-spectrum synthesized wideband signal. Ex. 1001, ’802
`
`Patent, at 1:9-14. The system also relates to the application of such a high
`
`frequency content recovery system in the context of a cellular communication
`
`system, a cellular mobile transmitter/receiver unit, a cellular network element, and
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`a bidirectional wireless communication sub-system.
`
`According to a preferred embodiment, the sampled speech signal is encoded
`
`on a block by block basis by the encoding device 100 depicted in Fig. 1. Next, the
`
`sampled input speech signal 114 is down-sampled in a down-sampling module
`
`101. Id. at 8:26-42. After down-sampling, the sample frame is reduced to down-
`
`sampling ratio of 4/5. Id. at 8:43-44. The input frame is then supplied to the
`
`optional pre processing block 102, which may consist of a high-pass filter for
`
`removing unwanted sound components below 50Hz (Id. at 8:45-49) or a
`
`preemphasis filter 103 for enhancing the high frequency contents of the input
`
`signal. Id. at 8:64-65. The output signal of 103 is used for performing LP analysis
`
`in calculator module 104.
`
`Id. at 9:7-9. LP analysis is performed in calculator
`
`module 104, which also performs the quantization and interpolation of the LP filter
`
`coefficients.
`
`Id. at 9:26-29. The ’802 Patent discloses a high-frequency content
`
`recovering method for injecting the high frequency content into the synthesized
`
`signal to produce a full spectrum synthesized signal. Id. at 3:9-16.
`
`C.
`
`The Claims Of The ’802 Patent
`
`Claims 1-3, 8, and 49 represent the central claims related to the decoder,
`
`while claims 9-11, 16, and 50 repeat these central claims a second time. Claims
`
`25-27, 32, 52, 33-35, and 40, 53 repeat all or some of the claims again in the
`
`specific context of a mobile transmitter/receiver unit and a communication
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`network element, respectively. Ex. 1035, ¶70. Claim 1 is an overview description
`
`of the entire decoder structure, comprising specific components a) through f).
`
`(Claim 9 later repeats this verbatim with only the additional clarification that
`
`component f) is the alleged improvement over prior work). Id. ¶71. Claim 2
`
`narrows claim 1 to the case where the random noise generator of the high
`
`frequency content recovering device, claim 1 component f) i), is a random white
`
`noise generator. Id. ¶72. Claim 3 further narrows claim 2 to the case where the
`
`spectral noise shaping unit, claim 1 component f) ii), comprises three further
`
`specific subcomponents. Id. ¶73. Claim 8 narrows claim 3 to the case where the
`
`bandpass filter, claim 1 component f) ii), claim 3 subcomponent c), comprises the
`
`frequencies 5.6kHz to 7.2kHz. Id. ¶74. Finally, claim 49 narrows claim 1 to the
`
`case where the spectral shaping unit is characterized by a frequency bandwidth
`
`“generally higher” than that of the over-sampled synthesized signal. Id. ¶75.
`
`D.
`
`Knowledge of a Person of Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’802 Patent would have
`
`familiarity and design experience with the most common types of speech encoders
`
`and decoders at the time of this patent, one of the most common of which was the
`
`Code Excited Linear Prediction approach to speech coding that is the topic of this
`
`declaration. Ex. 1035, ¶15. That includes basic knowledge of linear prediction
`
`analysis, various types of fixed excitation codebook methods, long-term pitch
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`prediction and adaptive codebooks, perceptual weighting,
`
`the optimization
`
`principles underlying analysis-by-synthesis
`
`speech coding, and bandwidth
`
`expansion.
`
`Id. Such background knowledge would typically represent
`
`the
`
`equivalent of a Master’s degree level of engineering in an engineering or computer
`
`science discipline combined with 3-5 years of industrial application experience. Id.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Petitioner submits that, for purposes of this Petition only1, the terms of the
`
`’802 Patent should be given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the ’802 Patent, except those terms discussed below. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b).
`
`The broadest reasonable construction of “pitch codebook” is a storage
`
`containing a sequence of previous sample values. See Ex. 1001, 10:45-61 (“. . .
`
`the pitch contribution can be seen as a pitch codebook containing the past
`
`excitation signal. . .”); 11:45-48 (“In this case, the pitch contribution to the
`
`excitation signal u(n) is given by bu(n-T), where the total excitation is given by
`
`u(n)=bu(n−T)+gc k(n) ”); 13:24-28 (“The pitch codebook search module 301 is
`
`1 Petitioner expressly reserves the right to submit constructions for the claims in
`
`the related litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas, under the legal
`
`standard applicable in that proceeding, including how a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand the claims.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`responsive to the target vector x, to the open-loop pitch lag TOL and to the past
`
`excitation signal u(n), n<0,
`
`from memory module 303 to conduct a pitch
`
`codebook (pitch codebook) search minimizing the above-defined search criterion
`
`C”); and 1:49-56.
`
`The broad reasonable construction of “innovative codebook” is a storage
`
`containing a sequence of fixed values. See Ex. 1001,14:34-41; 1:49-56.
`
`The broadest reasonable construction of “wideband signal” is an input
`
`signal having a bandwidth that extends at least up to 7000 Hz. See Ex. 1001.
`
`1:21-29.
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’802 PATENT FORMING THE
`BASES FOR THIS PETITION
`
`A.
`
`Admitted Prior Art
`
`Various limitations of claims 1, 9, and 25 constituted admitted prior art.
`
`Independent claim 9 recites “the improvement a high-frequency content recovering
`
`device comprising.” During prosecution, the claim that issued as claim 9 was
`
`added, which recited “the improvement comprising a high-frequency content
`
`recovering device comprising.” Ex. 1002, LGE_000500 (claim 76). When this
`
`claim was amended in the following office action response, the applicant appeared
`
`to inadvertently miscopy the previously presented claim because claim 76 states
`
`“the improvement a high-frequency content
`
`recovering device comprising,”
`
`without noting any amendment to remove “comprising” after “the improvement.”
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`Id. LGE_000581. The claim then issued with this typographical error. Therefore,
`
`the claim should be understood to recite “the improvement comprising.” As a
`
`result, the limitations preceding “the improvement” in claim 9 are all admitted
`
`prior art and thus, those identical limitations in claims 1 and 25 are also admitted
`
`prior art.
`
`B.
`
`A 13.0 kbit/s wideband speech codec based on SB-ACELP
`(“Schnitzler”)
`
`“A 13.0 kbit/s wideband speech codec based on SB-ACELP,” by Jurgen
`
`Schnitzler, Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference, Volume 1,
`
`pages 157-160, May 12-15 1998), was published as of at least May 15, 1998 more
`
`than one year before the October 27, 1999 filing date of the PCT application upon
`
`which the ‘802 patent is based, and is prior art to the ’802 Patent at least under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), 35 U.S.C. § 363, and 35 U.S.C. § 119(a). The cover page
`
`of Ex. 1004 notes that the Library of Congress received the publication May 1998.
`
`Ex. 1004, at LGE_000796.
`
`C.
`
`Reconstruction of Wideband Audio from Narrowband CELP
`Code (“Tasaki 1994”)
`
`“Reconstruction of Wideband Audio from Narrowband CELP Code,” by
`
`Tasaki, Acoustical Society of Japan, October-November 1994, was published as of
`
`at least November, 1994 more than one year before the October 27, 1999 filing
`
`date of the PCT application upon which the ’802 patent is based, and is prior art to
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`the ’802 Patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), 35 U.S.C. § 363, and 35
`
`U.S.C. § 119(a).
`
`D.
`
`16 kbit/s Wideband Speech Coding Based On Unequal Subbands
`(“Paulus”)
`
`Paulus was published as of at least May 10, 1996 more than one year before
`
`the October 27, 1999 filing date of the PCT application upon which the ’802
`
`Patent, and is prior art to the ’802 Patent is based, and is prior art to the ’802
`
`Patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), 35 U.S.C. § 363, and 35 U.S.C. §
`
`119(a).
`
`VII. TERMINOLOGY
`
`Various terms having the same meaning throughout the ’802 Patent and the
`
`prior art. As such, Petitioner provides the following chart illustrating synonymous
`
`terms used throughout some of the references cited herein to assist in the Board’s
`
`review of the unpatentability challenges. See Ex. 1035, ¶83.
`
`’802 Patent Terms (Ex. 1001)
`Pitch codebook (1:54-59)
`Pitch codebook parameters
`Innovative codebook (1:54-59)
`Innovative codebook parameters
`
`Schnitzler Terms (Ex. 1004)
`Adaptive codebook
`ACB-Index; ACB-Gain
`Fixed codebook
`FCB-Index; FCB-Gain
`
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY FOR EACH CLAIM
`
`In light of the disclosures detailed below, the ’802 Patent is unpatentable for
`
`at least the reasons in the following chart and discussed in more detail herein.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`No. Ground Prior Art
`1
`103(a)
`Schnitzler and
`Tasaki 1994
`
`Exhibit Nos.
`Ex. 1004 and Ex.
`1017
`
`Claims
`1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 25,
`26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40,
`49, 50, 52, and 53
`1, 9, 25, 33, 49, 50, 52, and
`53
`2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 16, 26, 27,
`Ex. 1004 and Ex.
`Schnitzler and
`32, 34, 35, 40
`1006
`Paulus
`The challenged claims of the ’802 Patent have significant overlapping
`
`2
`
`3
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`Schnitzler
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`limitations. For example, in many cases the claims are identical but for their
`
`preamble, and other claims are identical but for their dependency on different base
`
`claims. For these reasons, a single claim chart illustrating where each limitation of
`
`the ’802 Patent is disclosed in the prior art is provided in Section VII.D. The
`
`explanation of why each quotation discloses the corresponding element in the ’802
`
`Patent is provided below in Sections VII.A-C.
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: Schnitzler in View of Tasaki 1994 Renders Obvious
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 49, 50,
`52, And 53
`
`1.
`
`Schnitzler in view of Tasaki 1994 renders obvious claims 1,
`9, 25, 33, 49, 50, 52, and 53.
`
`Schnitzler in view of Tasaki 1994 renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10,
`
`11, 16, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 49, 50, 52, and 53. Claim 25 is identical to
`
`claim 1 except it has a different preamble. Claim 9 is identical to claim 1 except
`
`claim 9 includes “the improvement” before “a high frequency content recovering
`
`device in 1.f. This demonstrates that all the limitations in claim 1 (and 9 and 25)
`
`preceding 1.f were known in the art.
`
`See supra Section VI.A. Nevertheless,
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`
`
`Petitioner discusses all of the limitations of claim 1 below.the limitations of claim 1 below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Schnitzler discloses a decoder for producing a synthesized wideband signalSchnitzler discloses a decoder for producing a synthesized wideband signalSchnitzler discloses a decoder for producing a synthesized wideband signal
`
`
`
`
`
`as required by claim 1. According to Schnitzler, the input at the encoder is aas required by claim 1. According to Schnitzler, the input at the encoder is aas required by claim 1. According to Schnitzler, the input at the encoder is a
`
`
`
`wideband signal.wideband signal.
`
`
`
`
`
`Indeed, Schnitzler discloses thatIndeed, Schnitzler discloses that the original speech signal wasthe original speech signal was
`
`
`
`
`
`divided into a lower band and an upper band by a splitdivided into a lower band and an upper band by a split-band (SB) technique, whereband (SB) technique, where
`
`
`
`
`
`the lower band has a frequency range of 0the lower band has a frequency range of 0-6 kHz to be coded by an ACELP6 kHz to be coded by an ACELP
`
`
`
`approach. See Ex. 1004, 157 (Abstract); Ex. 1035, ¶¶85Ex. 1004, 157 (Abstract); Ex. 1035, ¶¶85-88. Thus, the en88. Thus, the encoded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lower band is already a wideband signal and as a result the decoder produces alower band is already a wideband signal and as a result the decoder produces alower band is already a wideband signal and as a result the decoder produces a
`
`
`
`wideband signal. Ex. 1004, 158.wideband signal. Ex. 1004, 158.
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding 1.a, Schnitzler discloses a signal fragmenting device for receivingRegarding 1.a, Schnitzler discloses a signal fragmenting device for receivingRegarding 1.a, Schnitzler discloses a signal fragmenting device for receiving
`
`
`
`an encoded version of a wideband signal previously downan encoded version of a wideband signal previously down-sampsampled during
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`encoding and extracting from the encoded wideband signal version at least pitchencoding and extracting from the encoded wideband signal version at least pitchencoding and extracting from the encoded wideband signal version at least pitch
`
`
`
`
`
`codebook parameters, innovative codebook parameters, and linear prediction filtercodebook parameters, innovative codebook parameters, and linear prediction filtercodebook parameters, innovative codebook parameters, and linear prediction filter
`
`
`
`
`
`coefficients. Schnitzler discloses Fig. 1, which depicts a DEMUX (i.e. acoefficients. Schnitzler discloses Fig. 1, which depicts a DEMUX (i.e. acoefficients. Schnitzler discloses Fig. 1, which depicts a DEMUX (i.e. a
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,151,802
`
`demultiplexer) for extracting encoded information from the incoming bit stream.
`
`Dr. Johnson explains that the signal fragmenting device is the demultiplexor,
`
`which is shown as the first stage of the decoder in Figure 1b). Ex. 1004, 158; Ex.
`
`1035, ¶89. He further explains that the received encoded wideband signal is the
`
`original speech signal, which has been downsampled from 16kHz to 12kHz in the
`
`encoder and that this is shown in Figure 1a). Ex. 1004, 158; Ex. 1035, ¶89.
`
`The signal fragmenting device of Schnitzler also extracts pitch codebook
`
`parameters,
`
`innovative
`
`codebook parameters,
`
`and linear prediction filter
`
`coefficients. For example,
`
`the DEMUX extracts the LPC (linear prediction
`
`coefficients), ACB-Index, ACB-Gain, FCB-Index, and FCB-gain extracted from
`
`the incoming bitstream r