UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`2626
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WAVES AUDIO, LTD
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00459
`
`
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`
`AMENDED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`Joseph Marsh, et al.
`6,363,345
`March 26, 2002
`09/252,874
`February 18, 1999
`System, Method and Apparatus For Cancelling Noise
`
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.:
`Issue Date:
`Serial No.:
`Filing Date:
`Title:
`
`
`Submitted via Electronic Filing
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`AMENDED PETITION FORINTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 6,363,345 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319
`
`Waves Audio Ltd. (“Waves” or “Petitioner”) hereby requests Inter Partes
`
`Review of Claims 1, 2, 3, 12-14, 17, 21, 23, 25, 38 and 47 in United States Patent
`
`Number 6,363,345 (“the ’345 Patent,” Exhibit 1001) owned by Andrea Electronics
`
`Corporation, LLC (“Andrea” or “Patentee”). A detailed statement supporting the
`
`petition follows.
`
`The present Amended Petition is being filed to address the defects noted in
`
`the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition mailed January 21, 2014. The
`
`requisite fee accompanied Petitioner’s initial Petition. If any additional fee is
`
`necessary the Director is authorized to charge Deposit Account No. 50-50-159.
`
`This document has been served on the Patent Owner as reflected in the
`
`accompanying Certificate of Service.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 1
`I.
`PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................... 2
`II.
`STANDING ................................................................................................... 2
`III.
`IV. REQUEST TO HOLD CLAIMS 1, 2, 3, 12-14, 17, 21, 23, 25, 38 and 47
`OF THE ’345 PATENT UNPATENTABLE................................................. 3
`A.
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’345 Patent ........................................... 3
`B.
`Summary Of The Prosecution History Of The ’345 Patent .................. 4
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 5
`A. Broadest Reasonable Construction ............................................................. 5
`B.
`“frequency bins” (claims 1-4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16 18, 21-24, 38, 39-42,
`44 and 45) .............................................................................................. 5
`“frequency spectrum generator” (claims 1 and 38) .............................. 6
`“magnitude of the frequency bin” (claims 1-4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16 18,
`21-24, 38, 39-42, 44 and 45) ................................................................. 6
`“threshold detector/setting a threshold” (claims 1, 38 and dependent
`claims) ................................................................................................... 6
`“detecting the position of…/detects the position of” (claims 1, 38 and
`dependent claims) .................................................................................. 6
`“noise estimation process” (claim 1 and dependent claims) ................. 6
`“subtractor for subtracting said noise elements/subtracting said noise
`elements” (claims 13 and 38) ................................................................ 7
`VI. PRIOR ART TO THE ’345 PATENT FORMING THE BASIS FOR THIS
`PETITION ...................................................................................................... 7
`A. Prior Art Documents ............................................................................. 7
`B.
`Summary of Unpatentability Arguments .............................................. 9
`
`G.
`H.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`V.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`

`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM ........... 12
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 13 and 38 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(e) As Being Anticipated By Higgins. ........................................... 12
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 12, 13, 21, 23 and 38 Are Unpatentable Under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) As Being Anticipated By Hirsch. ........................ 18
`Ground 3: Claims 1-3, 13, 14 and 38 are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b) As Being Anticipated by McAulay. ......................... 24
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1-3. 13, 14, 21 and 23 are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Arslan. ............................... 28
`Ground 5: Claims 1 and 38 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) As Being Obvious Over Higgins in View of Hirsch. .............. 34
`Ground 6: Claim 12 is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As
`Being Obvious Over Higgins or Hirsch In View Of Yang. ................ 39
`G. Ground 7: Claims 12 and 13 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) As Being Obvious Over Higgins or Hirsch In View Of Martin.
` ............................................................................................................. 40
`H. Ground 8: Claim 17 and 47 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.§ 103(a)
`As Being Obvious Over Higgins or Hirsch In View Of Boll. ............ 42
`Ground 9: Claim 21 is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As
`Being Obvious Over Higgins or Hirsch In View Of Adams. ............... 43
`Ground 10: Claim 23 is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As
`Being Obvious Over Higgins or Hirsch In View Adams and further in
`view Of O’Hagan. ............................................................................... 44
`K. Ground 11: Claim 23 is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As
`Being Obvious Over Higgins or Hirsch In View Of Adams and further
`in view of Lindemann. ........................................................................ 45
`Ground 12: Claim 25 is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As
`Being Obvious Over Higgins or Hirsch In View Of Cezanne. ........... 47
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 48
`
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`L.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`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”)
`
`Prosecution History of Application No. 09/252,874 which issued as
`U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`
`Table 1 – List Of Each Challenged Claim Element Annotated
`With Its Claim Number and A Reference Letter
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`Petitioner’s List of Related Litigation Matters And Patents at Issue
`
`1004
`
`Petitioner’s List of IPR Petitions and Challenged Patent Claims of
`the Andrea Patents
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,266,633 (“Higgins”) filed in the United States on
`December 22, 1998
`
`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”)
`
`McAulay and Malpass, “Speech Enhancement Using a Soft-Decision
`Noise Suppression Filter,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech
`and Signal Processing, Vol. 28, No. 2, April 1980 (“McAulay”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,395 (“Arslan”) was filed in the United States
`on April 19, 1995
`U.S. Patent No. 5,432,859 (“Yang”) was published in the United
`States in 1995
`
`Rainer Martin, “An Efficient Algorithm to Estimate the
`Instantaneous SNR of Speech Signals,” Proc. Eurospeech, pp.
`1093-96, 1993 (“Martin”)
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
` v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`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”)
`
`1012
`
`Adams and Brady, “Magnitude Approximations for
`Microprocessor Implementation,” IEEE Micro, Vol. 3, No. 5,
`October 1983 (“Adams”) was published in the United States in
`1983
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,581,658 (“O’Hagan”) was published in the
`United States on December 3, 1996
`U.S. Patent No. 5,651,071, (“Lindemann”) “Noise Reduction System
`For Binaural Hearing Aid,” to Eric Lindemann and John Laurence
`Melanson, issued on Jul. 22, 1997
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,473,701 (“Cezanne”) was published in the United
`States on December 5, 1995
`
`Declaration of Bertand Hochwald (“Hochwald Decl.”)
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, Petitioner hereby respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-3, 12-14, 17, 21, 23, 25, 38 and 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, Waves Audio, Ltd., Azrielli Center
`
`3, Tel-Aviv 67023, ISRAEL 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 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 an action in the U.S.
`
`International Trade Commission (USITC Action, Investigation No. 337-TA-949).
`
`Petitioner further states that the above cited actions also involve Andrea’s U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 5,825,898, 6,049,607, 6,377,637, and 6,483,923. Concurrently,
`
`Petitioner is filing one other inter partes review petition, challenging certain claim
`
`elements of U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607, which are: (1) subject to additional prior art
`
`references; and (2) may affect, or be affected by, decision(s) in the proceedings of
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`
`the Andrea patents. For further references, Petitioner includes as Exhibit 1004 (list
`
`of related litigation matters); and Exhibit 1005 (list of concurrently filed IPR2015
`
`petitions and challenged patent claims).
`
`C. Lead Counsel and Service Information – 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b) (3) & (4).
`
`J. Scott Denko (Reg. No. 37,606) is lead counsel. Patrick Stellitano (Reg.
`
`No. 42,169) is associate counsel on this matter. The Petitioner may be served in this
`
`matter as follows:
`
`Email
`
`Post and Hand
`Delivery
`
`J. Scott Denko
`Patrick Stellitano
`Denko Lauff, L.L.P.
`denko@dcllegal.com
`Stellitano@dcllegal.com
`512-906-2074
`Telephone No.
`512-906-2075
`Facsimile No.
`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 by firm Check. Any overpayment should be credited and any
`
`underpayment should be charged to Deposit Account 50-5159. 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
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`
`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
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`IV. REQUEST TO HOLD CLAIMS 1, 2, 3, 12-14, 17, 21, 23, 25, 38 and 47
`OF THE ’345 PATENT UNPATENTABLE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner requests that the Board hold
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 12-14, 17, 21, 23, 25, 38 and 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
`
`1003, is a Table that provides the ’345 patent claim elements challenged, each
`
`limitation annotated with its claim number and a reference letter.
`
`The specific statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §102 and/or §103 upon which
`
`each challenge to each claim is based and the patents or printed publications relied
`
`upon for each ground are set forth below.
`
`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 takes an audio signal which includes a
`
`noise signal and uses a frequency spectrum generator to generate the frequency
`
`spectrum of the audio signal thereby generating frequency bins of the audio signal.
`
`The system then uses a threshold detector that sets a threshold for each frequency
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`
`bin using a noise estimation process and detects for each frequency bin whether the
`
`magnitude of the bin is less than the threshold so as to detect the position of noise
`
`elements for each frequency bin. . 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. Exhibits 1001 and 1002
`
`at page 3. The application entitled “System, Method and Apparatus for Cancelling
`
`Noise,” lists its inventors as Joseph Marash and Baruch Berdugo. Ex. 1002 at page
`
`4. On November 16, 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 page 920. On May 16, 2001, the Applicant filed a duplicate copy
`
`of the previously filed IDS, and requested reconsideration. Id. at page 1064. On May
`
`29, 2001, the Examiner issued a Final Rejection based on the prior untraversed
`
`double patenting rejection. Id. at page 1084. On June 5, 2001, the Applicant filed an
`
`Amendment traversing the double patenting rejection by noting that Application
`
`09/385,966 had been abandoned. Id. at page 1091. 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 page
`
`1094. On September 28, 2001, the Applicant filed an Amendment to overcome this
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`
`rejection, which was accepted. Id. at page 1100. The Examiner subsequently issued
`
`a Notice of Allowance on October 9, 2001. Id. at page 1115.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Broadest Reasonable Construction
`
`For the purposes of inter partes review only, the terms of the ’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 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 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.
`
`B.
`“frequency bins” (claims 1-4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16 18, 21-24, 38, 39-42,
`44 and 45)
`
`Petitioner submits that the term “frequency bin(s)” means frequency domain
`
`outputs extending between two limiting frequencies. Ex. 1001, Col. 3, lines 4-6.
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`C.
`
`“frequency spectrum generator” (claims 1 and 38)
`
`Petitioner submits that the term “frequency spectrum generator” means
`
`hardware or software that separates an audio signal into frequency bins thereby
`
`generating a frequency spectrum. Id. Col. 2, lines 11-14.
`
`D.
`“magnitude of the frequency bin” (claims 1-4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16 18,
`21-24, 38, 39-42, 44 and 45)
`
`Petitioner submits that the term “magnitude of the frequency bin” means the
`
`level of the signal present in the frequency bin as a result of the operation of the
`
`frequency spectrum generator. Id. Col. 2, lines 24-30.
`
`E.
`“threshold detector/setting a threshold” (claims 1, 38 and dependent
`claims)
`
`Petitioner submits that the term “threshold detector” means an algorithm that,
`
`for each frequency bin, sets a threshold and compares a magnitude of the frequency
`
`bin to the predetermined threshold. Further, “setting a threshold” means
`
`determining, for each frequency bin, a threshold, which is compared with a
`
`magnitude of the frequency bin. Id. Col. 3, lines 30-36.
`
`F.
`“detecting the position of…/detects the position of” (claims 1, 38 and
`dependent claims)
`
`Petitioner submits that the term “detecting the position of” means determining
`
`which frequency bins contain noise elements at a given time. Id. Col. 3, lines 30-36.
`
`G.
`
`“noise estimation process” (claim 1 and dependent claims)
`
`Petitioner submits that the term “noise estimation process” according to its
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`
`plain and ordinary meaning means an algorithm for estimating the level of the
`
`undesired signal for each frequency bin. Id. Col. 2, lines 19-21.
`
`H.
`“subtractor for subtracting said noise elements/subtracting said noise
`elements” (claims 13 and 38)
`
`Petitioner submits that the term “subtracting said noise elements” means an
`
`algorithm that subtracts, though pure subtraction or filter multiplication, the
`
`estimated noise from the current bin. Id. Col. 3, lines 58-62.
`
`VI. PRIOR ART TO THE ’345 PATENT FORMING THE BASIS FOR
`THIS PETITION
`A. Prior Art Documents
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,266,633 (“Higgins”) (Ex. 1006) was filed in the United
`
`States on December 22, 1998. As a result, Higgins is available as prior art against
`
`all claims of the ’345 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`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. 1007) 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).
`
`McAulay and Malpass, “Speech Enhancement Using a Soft-Decision Noise
`
`Suppression Filter,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing,
`
`Vol. 28, No. 2, April 1980 (“McAulay”) (Ex. 1008) was published in the United
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`
`States in 1980. As a result, McAulay is available as prior art against all claims of
`
`the ‘345 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,395 (“Arslan”) (Ex. 1009) was filed in the United States
`
`on April 19, 1995. As a result, Arslan is available as prior art against all claims of
`
`the ’345 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,432,859 (“Yang”) (Ex. 1010) was published in the United
`
`States in 1995. As a result, Yang 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. 1011) 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. 1012) 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).
`
`Adams and Brady, “Magnitude Approximations for Microprocessor
`
`Implementation,” IEEE Micro, Vol. 3, No. 5, October 1983 (“Adams”) (Ex. 1013)
`
`was published in the United States in 1983. As a result, Adams is available as prior
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`
`art against all claims of the ’345 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,581,658 (“O’Hagan”) (Ex. 1014) was published in the
`
`United States on December 3, 1996. As a result, O’Hagan is available as prior art
`
`against all claims of the ‘345 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,651,071 (“Lindemann”) (Ex. 1015) was published on July
`
`22, 1997. As a result, Lindemann is available as prior art against all claims of the
`
`‘345 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,473,701 (“Cezanne”) (Ex. 1016) was published in the
`
`United States on December 5, 1995. As a result, Cezanne is available as prior art
`
`against all claims of the ‘345 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Note that although Boll (Ex. 1012) and Yang (Ex. 1010) were 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 reference in any rejection 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.
`
`For example, Higgins describes a system which receives a speech signal and
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`
`suppresses noise in the speech signal. Higgins (Ex. 1006), col. 3, lines 31-58. This
`
`is done in Higgins by transforming the speech signal into a plurality of frequency
`
`bins. Id., col. 6, lines 5-31. Higgins further discloses determining a threshold,
`
`comparing and detecting a position of noise when a signal in a frequency bin is less
`
`than the threshold. Id. col. 7, lines 19-28, Claim 6.
`
`Further, Hirsch describes a system which takes an input signal containing
`
`noise and divides it into frequency bands or bins. Hirsch (Ex. 1007) at pp. 153, 155.
`
`Hirsch also discloses estimating 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. Id. at p. 153.
`
`McAulay describes a noise suppression method including noise cancellation
`
`by subtracting a minimum mean-squared estimate of the noise signal derived from
`
`Wiener filtering a noisy speech waveform. McAulay (Ex. 1008) at p. 137.
`
`Arslan describes the system recited in Claim 1 of the ’345 Patent except that
`
`in Arslan, noise suppression is performed based on signal power in each frequency
`
`bin, whereas Claim 1 addresses noise suppression based on signal magnitude in each
`
`frequency bin. Arslan also teaches that spectral subtraction can be performed by
`
`filter multiplication. Arslan (Ex. 1009), col. 4, lines 7-11. Arslan further teaches
`
`that the filter can be a Weiner filter. (Id., lines 23-25).
`
`Yang shows an exponential averaging of noise power over a frequency bin
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`
`and determining if the average noise power is less than a threshold. Yang (Ex. 1010),
`
`col. 5, line 51-col. 6, line 20.
`
`Martin discloses a method of estimating the noise level in a noisy speech input
`
`signal by smoothing (averaging) a power estimate and comparing the smoothed
`
`power estimate to a threshold. Martin operates upon noise power rather than
`
`magnitude. Martin (Ex. 1011), page 1093. However, it would have been obvious to
`
`apply Martin to signal magnitude. Id.
`
`Boll teaches that a residual noise reducing process may be performed after the
`
`spectral subtraction. Boll (Ex. 1012), page 115, col. 1.
`
` Adams teaches the same estimator for estimating a magnitude of each
`
`frequency bin as disclosed in the ’345 patent. Adams (Ex. 1013), page 28, col. 2
`
`and Table 1.
`
`O’Hagan teaches averaging over a selectable number of frequency bins and a
`
`selectable number of time sample bins, thereby smoothing the estimate of the
`
`magnitude of each frequency bin. O’Hagan (Ex. 1014), col. 8, lines 17-20.
`
`Lindemann also discloses such a two-dimensional smoothing process in the
`
`context of reducing noise in a binaural hearing aid signal. Lindemann, Abstract.
`
`Lindemann teaches a frequency band-smoothing process as well as a temporal
`
`smoothing process. Lindemann (Ex. 1015), col. 8, lines 47-55; Fig. 3B; col. 9, lines
`
`27-29; Fig. 4.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`Cezanne teaches an adaptive array of microphones for receiving an audio
`
`
`
`signal. Cezanne (Ex. 1016), Abstract, Fig. 3, col. 5, lines 5-10.
`
`In short, the ’345 Patent claims no inventive matter and discloses no novel
`
`signal processing technology or techniques to suppress noise in a speech signal.
`
`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, 13 and 38 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(e) As Being Anticipated By Higgins.
`
`Claims 1-3, 13 and 38 are unpatentable as being anticipated by Higgins.
`
`Higgins discloses “A method for performing noise suppression and channel
`
`equalization of a noisy voice signal…” Higgins (Ex. 1006), Abstract, Figs. 2A and
`
`2B. Higgins discusses a signal pre-processor that receives a speech signal (audio
`
`signal) and attenuates noise that may be present in the speech signal. Id., col. 3,
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`
`lines 31-38. Each incoming frame of speech is multiplied by a Hanning window
`
`and transformed by a fast Fourier transform (FFT) 60, i.e., a frequency spectrum
`
`generator, to generate frequency bins of the audio signal. Id., col. 6, lines 5-31, col.
`
`7, line 24. Higgins also teaches a noise estimation process to determine a threshold
`
`Nf, by generating a histogram and determining the peak amplitude of the histogram
`
`at each frequency. Id.,, Claim 6 and col. 7, lines 19-28. The noise threshold is
`
`subtracted from each spectral sample (at each frequency bin). If the result of the
`
`subtraction is negative, the result is set to zero indicating that the spectral sample is
`
`noise. Id., Claim 23, col. 5, lines 51-54. Consequently, and as to Claim 2, the
`
`threshold detector of Higgins detects the positions of noise which is non-speech
`
`data. Further, as to Claim 3, the threshold detector of Higgins detects the positions
`
`of non-speech data on a frame by frame basis without regard to whether there is
`
`speech during the time frame or not.
`
`In light of the above, the table below demonstrates how each limitation of
`
`Claims 1-3, 13 and 38 of the ‘345 Patent is anticipated by Higgins.
`
`Claims 1-3, 13 and 38 of the
`‘345 Patent
`1. An apparatus for canceling
`noise, comprising:
`
`Prior Art: Higgins
`
`Higgins: “A method for performing noise
`suppression and channel equalization of a noisy
`voice signal…” Higgins (Ex. 1006) Abstract. (See
`Fig. 2A and 2B.)
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`Claims 1-3, 13 and 38 of the
`‘345 Patent
`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
`
`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.
`
`Prior Art: Higgins
`
`Higgins: “It is an object of the present invention to
`provide a signal pre-processor which accepts as
`input a speech signal from a microphone or other
`source … It is intended to be used… by
`attenuating stationary noise that may be present in
`the input signal.” col. 3, lines 31-38. Fig. 1, “A
`user speaks into a microphone 18.” Higgins (Ex.
`1006) col. 4, line 63. See Hochwald Decl. (Ex.
`1017), ¶ 70.
`Higgins: “Each incoming frame of sampled data
`23A indicative of a speech utterance received over
`an input channel is multiplied by a Hanning
`Window 50 and processed using an FFT 60,” “The
`sampled data 23A is indicative of a noisy voice
`input signal…,” “The FFT transforms the
`windowed frame data into a “frequency domain”
`representation,”
`Operation of the FFT 60 produces, for each frame
`of data, 512 real/imaginary number pairs
`representing the complex spectrum at the 512 FFT
`sampling frequencies indicated f0, f11,…f511.” col.
`6, lines 5-31. See col. 7, line 24, “each frequency
`bin.” See also, Hochwald Decl. (Ex. 1017), ¶ 71.
`Higgins: “determining a noise threshold Nf
`associated with each frequency f;” Claim 1.
`Higgins: “wherein the step of determining the
`noise threshold Nf comprises generating a
`histogram of the spectral magnitudes for each
`frequency and determining the peak amplitude of
`said histogram at each frequency.” Claim 6. See
`also, “In each histogram, the background noise
`becomes evident as a peak or mode within the
`histogram corresponding to the amplitude of the
`noise floor at that particular frequency.” Higgins
`(Ex. 1006) col. 7, lines 19-28.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Amended Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`Afforded Filing Date: January 14, 2016
`
`Prior Art: Higgins
`
`See also, Hochwald Decl. (Ex. 1017), ¶ 72.
`
` Higgins: “subtracting from the magnitude of each
`said spectral sample said noise amplitude Nf and
`setting any negative results of said subtraction to
`zero, to provide a subtracted sample sequence;”
`Claim 23. See also, “Once the noise floor, Nf, and
`channel frequency response are obtained, the
`preprocessor 26 in a second pass, subtracts from
`each of the magnitude spectra the noise floor and
`sets any negative results to zero.” Higgins (Ex.
`1006) col. 5, lines 51-54. See also, Hochwald
`Decl. (Ex. 1017), ¶ 72.
`Higgins: “subtracting from the magnitude of each
`said spectral sample said noise amplitude Nf and
`setting any negative re