UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`WAVES AUDIO, LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00461
`
`Patent 6,049,607
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF BERTRAND M. HOCHWALD IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTIES REVIEW OF US PATENT 6,049,607
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`WAVES607_1014-0001
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`WAVES AUDIO, LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00461
`
`Patent 6,049,607
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF BERTRAND M. HOCHWALD IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTIES REVIEW OF US PATENT 6,049,607
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`WAVES607_1014-0001
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Bertrand M. Hochwald, declare the following to be true and correct
`
`to the best of my knowledge. Except where otherwise indicated, I have personal
`
`knowledge of the facts below and, if called to do so, would and could testify
`
`regarding the matters stated in this report. I make this Declaration in support of inter
`
`partes review of US Patents 6,049,607.
`
`Ltd.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by Denko Lauff LLP on behalf of Waves Audio,
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights,
`
`and opinions on the materials I have reviewed in this case related to the ‘607 patent,
`
`including the references that form the basis of the grounds of rejection.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`A. Educational Background
`
`4.
`
`In 1995 I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, and in 1993 an
`
`M.A. in Statistics from Yale University. My primary area of study was Statistical
`
`Signal Processing. I received an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Duke
`
`University in 1986, and a B.S. in Engineering from Swarthmore College in 1984.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`WAVES607_1014-0002
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`B. Career History
`
`5.
`
`I have twenty years of combined industry and academic experience in
`
`the research and design of systems for signal processing, and wireless and wireline
`
`communications.
`
`6. My most recent appointment, starting in 2011, is with the University of
`
`Notre Dame, where I am currently a Freimann Chaired Professor of Electrical
`
`Engineering. I teach both graduate and undergraduate classes in Communication
`
`Systems and in Signals and Systems, where the emphasis is on the processing of
`
`analog and digital signals. My primary areas of research include communication
`
`systems, radiofrequency circuits, and signal design and processing. I advise
`
`graduate students who are attaining Ph.D. degrees through research and coursework.
`
`7.
`
`Prior to Notre Dame, I worked from 2005-2010 at Beceem
`
`Communications, a cellular wireless communication chipset start-up company in
`
`Santa Clara, California, where I was Chief Scientist and Vice President of Systems
`
`Engineering. I was an integral part of the chipset development team. Beceem was
`
`bought by Broadcom Corporation in 2010 and no longer exists as a separate
`
`company.
`
`8.
`
`Prior to Beceem, I worked from 1996-2005 at Lucent Bell Laboratories
`
`in New Jersey, where I was as a Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff doing
`
`research into communications systems and multiple-antenna systems. This resulted
`
`
`
`3
`
`WAVES607_1014-0003
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`in many patents and publications across a variety of areas in communication theory,
`
`information theory, and circuit design.
`
`9.
`
`Prior to Bell Laboratories, I was a Visiting Assistant Professor at the
`
`University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign during the 1995-1996 academic year,
`
`where I worked on a broad range of research topics related to signal processing and
`
`communications.
`
`10. Prior to completing my Ph.D., during 1986-1989 I worked at the
`
`Department of Defense as a system engineer for signal processing and wireless
`
`communication systems.
`
`C.
`
`Publications
`
`11. As indicated in detail in my CV (attached and incorporated as Exhibit
`
`1), I have published approximately 95 articles in scholarly journals, many of them
`
`within the journals of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE),
`
`one of the premier societies for electrical engineers. I have 37 granted patents in a
`
`variety of areas related to communication and signal processing systems. I have
`
`been an invited and plenary speaker at several international conferences throughout
`
`the world and have received awards and recognition for my research and
`
`publications.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`WAVES607_1014-0004
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`D. Other relevant qualifications
`
`12.
`
`In addition to my academic and practical experience, I have worked as
`
`an expert in the areas of communication and signal processing systems, as detailed
`
`in Exhibit 1. I have had experience drafting and successfully prosecuting my own
`
`patents, and have worked with other experts in signal processing systems as co-
`
`authors and co-inventors.
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $500 per hour for my
`
`work in connection with this matter. This compensation is not dependent in any way
`
`on the contents of this Declaration, the substance of any further opinions or
`
`testimony that I may provide or the ultimate outcome of this matter.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`14.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied on my knowledge and
`
`experience in the field of signal and audio processing, and on the documents and
`
`information described below. I have reviewed the following materials:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 (the ‘607 patent) and its file history;
`
`Sources listed in Exhibit 2.
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`15.
`
`I will not offer opinions of law because I am not an attorney. However,
`
`I have been informed of several principles of patent law, which I used in formulating
`
`my opinions.
`
`
`
`5
`
`WAVES607_1014-0005
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`16.
`
`In formulating my opinion, I understand that I must use a “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard” for interpreting the claims in an inter partes
`
`Review. Further, there is no presumption of validity of the claims.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`17.
`
`I understand that each patent claim is considered separately for
`
`purposes of invalidity. I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as
`
`“anticipated” if each and every feature of the claim is found, expressly or inherently,
`
`in a single prior art reference or product arranged as recited in the claim. Claim
`
`limitations that are not expressly found in a prior art reference are inherent if the
`
`prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claim limitations.
`
`It is acceptable to examine evidence outside the prior art reference (extrinsic
`
`evidence) in determining whether a feature, while not expressly discussed in the
`
`reference, is necessarily present in it.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results. In other words, when a claim simply arranges prior art elements
`
`with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no
`
`more than one would expect from such an arrangement, then such a combination is
`
`obvious. Moreover, when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art
`
`
`
`6
`
`WAVES607_1014-0006
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field,
`
`the combination is likely to be obvious unless the combination yields and
`
`unpredictable result.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that when a work is available in one field of
`
`endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
`
`either in the same field or a different one. If one of ordinary skill in the art can
`
`implement a predictable variation, such a variation is likely unpatentable. For the
`
`same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her
`
`skill. One question to consider is whether the improvement is more than the
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
`
`20.
`
`I am informed that it may often be necessary, in a validity analysis, to
`
`look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to
`
`the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there
`
`was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by
`
`the patent at issue.
`
`21.
`
`I am informed that a validity analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim; it is
`
`
`
`7
`
`WAVES607_1014-0007
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative steps that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would employ.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a claim composed of several elements is not proved
`
`obvious merely by demonstrating that each element was, independently, known in
`
`the prior art. I understand that it can be important to identify a reason that would
`
`have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
`
`elements in the way the claimed new invention does. Therefore, I am informed that,
`
`in determining whether a claimed combination is obvious, the correct question is
`
`whether the combination was obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the patent application was filed. I am told that one of the ways in which subject
`
`matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention
`
`a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
`
`patent’s claims. I understand that any need or problem known in the field of endeavor
`
`at the time of alleged invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
`
`combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`23.
`
`I am informed that one should not assume that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior
`
`art designed to solve the same problem. Instead, I understand that since familiar
`
`items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, in many cases one of
`
`
`
`8
`
`WAVES607_1014-0008
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the teachings of multiple prior art references
`
`together like pieces of a puzzle.
`
`24.
`
`I am informed that, when there is a design need or market pressure to
`
`solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within
`
`his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, then it is likely the
`
`product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. I understand
`
`that, in such an instance, the fact that the combination was obvious to try may show
`
`that the combination is obvious.
`
`25.
`
`I am informed that, when determining whether a claimed combination
`
`is obvious, the correct analysis is not whether one of ordinary skill in the art, writing
`
`on a blank slate, would have chosen the particular combination of elements
`
`described in the claim. Instead, I understand the correct analysis considers whether
`
`one of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the
`
`field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to selecting the combination claimed.
`
`C. Written Description
`
`26.
`
`I am informed that a patent must contain a written description of the
`
`invention to ensure that the patentee had possession of the claimed invention at the
`
`time of the application, i.e., that the patentee invented what is claimed. I am informed
`
`that there are two closely related requirements to meet the written description
`
`
`
`9
`
`WAVES607_1014-0009
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`requirement. First, it must describe the process or manner in the specification in a
`
`way that enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without
`
`undue experimentation. Second, the disclosure must describe the invention in a
`
`manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the patentee had
`
`possession of all of the claimed invention at the time of the application.
`
`27.
`
`I am informed that a recitation of how to make and use the invention
`
`across the full breadth of the claim is ordinarily sufficient to demonstrate that the
`
`inventor possesses the full scope of the invention. I am also informed that a claim
`
`will not be invalidated for lack of written description grounds simply because the
`
`embodiments of the specification do not contain examples explicitly covering the
`
`full scope of the claim language. However, I am also informed that there are
`
`situations in which a specification that describes a species might fail to adequately
`
`describe a claim to the genus. I am informed that a single embodiment would support
`
`such a generic claim only if the specification would reasonably convey to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the
`
`claimed invention at the time of filing.
`
`28.
`
`I also understand that a patent must conclude with one or more claims
`
`particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the
`
`applicant regards as his invention. To satisfy this definiteness requirement, the
`
`claims of a patent must adequately perform their function of notifying the public of
`
`
`
`10
`
`WAVES607_1014-00010
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude. This standard is only met when the
`
`claims clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and
`
`clearly circumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise.
`
`29. Consequently, the claims must be sufficiently precise to permit a
`
`potential competitor to objectively determine whether or not his actions would
`
`infringe.
`
`V. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`30.
`
`I reserve the right to amend and/or supplement this declaration if new
`
`evidence, arguments, or testimony is presented, for example, in discovery for this
`
`IPR.
`
`VI. GENERAL FIELD OF ART; A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY
`SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`31.
`
`I understand from counsel that I should consider what is called the
`
`intrinsic evidence which includes the specification, including the claims and figures
`
`and text, and the file history as well as materials that have been incorporated into the
`
`specification from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention.
`
`32.
`
` Based on my experience and research in the field and knowledge of
`
`colleagues and co-workers and my experience as a professor of students ranging
`
`from candidates for the B.S. degree to Ph.D. candidates in electrical engineering, I
`
`
`
`11
`
`WAVES607_1014-00011
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`would characterize a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention (“PHOSITA”) as having either of the following qualifications:
`
`a)
`
`A Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or
`
`physics or a related degree and familiarity and experience with
`
`digital signal processing; or
`
`b)
`
`A Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or
`
`physics or a related field with at least two years of industry or
`
`academic research experience in digital signal processing.
`
`VII. THE ‘607 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Perspective
`
`33. The ’607 patent, filed on September 18, 1998, describes an apparatus
`
`and method for echo-canceling in a full-duplex communication system like a
`
`teleconference. Full-duplex refers to the fact that there is a “near-end” and “far-end”
`
`(where “near” depends on the observer’s location) and that both ends may talk
`
`simultaneously. Both ends have loudspeakers and in the preferred embodiments,
`
`plural microphones. The microphones are intended for capturing conversations at
`
`their respective ends, but may also capture audio coming from the nearby
`
`loudspeakers, thus creating feedback from the loudspeaker into the microphone that
`
`is perceived as echo at the source.
`
`
`
`12
`
`WAVES607_1014-00012
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`34. The ‘607 patent describes canceling the echoes in the system by
`
`adaptively filtering the interference signal from the target signal. This is
`
`accomplished through splitting the signal into a plurality of signals that have
`
`differing frequency bands. The adaptive filters then operate on a per-band basis.
`
`35. The notion of adaptive filtering dates from the 1960’s, and is well-
`
`summarized in Widrow et al, “Adaptive Noise Canceling: Principles and
`
`Applications,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 63, no. 12, Dec. 1975. Widrow is an
`
`early pioneer in adaptively filtering signals, and the system used for such filtering is
`
`called an “adaptive filter.” Figure A shown below is reproduced from page 1693 of
`
`Widrow’s 1975 paper.
`
`
`
`Figure A: Adaptive filter block diagram (from Widrow, 1975)
`
`
`
`13
`
`WAVES607_1014-00013
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`36.
`
`In this figure the Noise Source, after propagating through a first
`
`channel, adds as “n0” to the Signal Source at the Primary Input and, after propagating
`
`through a second different channel, is provided as “n1” to the Reference Input.
`
`37. Typically the Adaptive Filter operates using a so-called least mean-
`
`square (LMS) algorithm to adapt filter coefficients that act on the signal n1 or
`
`“reference signal” introduced into the Reference Input. The filter coefficients,
`
`sometimes also called “weights,” determine the behavior of the filter and are
`
`dependent on the signals introduced at the Reference Input and Primary Input. The
`
`adaptive (e.g. LMS) algorithm is shown in the Figure as an arrow through the
`
`Adaptive Filter block.
`
`38. A variant of the LMS algorithm is called the NLMS algorithm, where
`
`the “N” stands for “normalized,” where the adaptation of the filter coefficients. A
`
`description of NLMS algorithms is given by S. Douglas, “A Family of Normalized
`
`LMS Algorithms,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 1, no. 3, March 1994. Such
`
`algorithms have better weight adaptation properties than their LMS counterparts and
`
`more stable behavior independent of the input data statistics. Because the NLMS
`
`normalizes by the energy in the input vector, it is less prone to transients in the
`
`reference signal level.
`
`39. A PHOSITA, at the time of the September 18, 1998 filing of the ‘607
`
`Patent, would be familiar with these concepts since they originated in the 1960’s,
`
`
`
`14
`
`WAVES607_1014-00014
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`and development continued through the ensuing decades, especially its application
`
`to echo canceling in speech and audio signals.
`
`40.
`
`In its preferred embodiments, the ‘607 patent combines acoustic multi-
`
`microphone beamforming with adaptive filtering. The basic goal of beamforming,
`
`which involves “steering” a beam by delaying and summing the outputs of an array
`
`of microphones, is to emphasize a signal of interest coming from a direction of
`
`interest, while simultaneously de-emphasizing signals coming from other directions.
`
`A PHOSITA would be familiar with the concepts of acoustic beamforming, since its
`
`origin dates to the early 1900’s.
`
`B. Notational Convention
`
`41.
`
`In the sections that follow, I discuss the Claims of the ‘607 patent and
`
`the prior art references. It is shown how the prior art either anticipates or renders
`
`obvious the ‘607 Claims. I use italic emphasis in my discussion when referring to
`
`specific terms in the Claim language of the ‘607 patent. I use “quotations” when
`
`referring to specific terms in the prior art and references.
`
`C. The Claims of the ‘607 Patent
`
`42. The Claims discussed in this Declaration include Claims 1-4, 8, 25-28,
`
`and 32.
`
`43.
`
`I reproduce Claim 1 for ease of reference:
`
`
`
`15
`
`WAVES607_1014-00015
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`Claim 1. An interference canceling apparatus for canceling, from a
`target signal generated from a target source, an interference signal
`generated by an interference source, said apparatus comprising:
`a main input for inputting said target signal;
`a reference input for inputting said interference signal;
`a beam splitter for beam-splitting said target signal into a plurality of
`band-limited target signals and beam-splitting said interference
`signal into band-limited interference signals, wherein the amount and
`frequency of bandlimited target signals equal the amount and
`frequency of band-limited interference signals, whereby for each
`band-limited target signal there is a corresponding band-limited
`interference signal;
`an adaptive filter for adaptively filtering, each band-limited interference
`signal from each corresponding band-limited target signal.
`
`
`44. A PHOSITA at the time of the filing of the ‘607 patent would interpret
`
`this claim as an apparatus for canceling a source of interference in an audio signal
`
`that uses a beam-splitter and an adaptive filter. The beam-splitter is said to split the
`
`target signal into multiple band-limited signals. An adaptive filter is used for each
`
`such band-limited signal.
`
`45. Some terms are not defined in this claim, such as beam-splitter.
`
`Furthermore, the phrase a reference input for inputting said interference signal is
`
`atypical and would need to be clarified by reading the Specification. Normally the
`
`term reference input is stated as being input with a reference signal, not an
`
`
`
`16
`
`WAVES607_1014-00016
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`interference signal (we do not normally have access to the interference signal
`
`separately since could otherwise simply be subtracted off from the target signal,
`
`leaving the clean audio signal).
`
`46. Claim 2 depends on Claim 1, and limits the apparatus to a
`
`teleconference system.
`
`47. Claim 3 depends on Claim 2, and limits the structure of the filter to an
`
`adaptive filter array.
`
`48. Claim 4 depends on Claim 2, and constrains the behavior of the filter
`
`to estimating a transfer function.
`
`49. Claim 8 depends on Claim 2, and incorporates a beam selector for
`
`selecting a direction from which said main signal is received.
`
`50. Claim 25 is a method claim similar to the apparatus Claim 1,
`
`reproduced here:
`
`Claim 25. An interference canceling method for canceling, from a target
`signal generated from a target source, an interference signal generated
`by an interference source, said method comprising the steps of:
`inputting said target signal;
`inputting said interference signal;
`beam-splitting said target signal into a plurality of band-limited target
`signals and beam-splitting said interference signal into band-limited
`interference signals, wherein the amount and frequency of band-
`limited target signals equal the amount and frequency of band-limited
`
`
`
`17
`
`WAVES607_1014-00017
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`interference signals, whereby for each band-limited target signal
`there is a corresponding band-limited interference signal; and
`adaptively filtering, each band-limited interference signal from each
`corresponding band-limited target signal.
`
`
`51. Claim 26 depends on Claim 25 and adds a teleconference limitation.
`
`52. Claim 27 depends on Claim 26 and adds per-band adaptive filters.
`
`53. Claim 28 depends on Claim 26 and limits the behavior of the adaptive
`
`filter to estimating a transfer function.
`
`54. Claim 32 depends on Claim 26, and incorporates the step of beam-
`
`selecting the direction from which said main signal is received. Note that there is
`
`no antecedent to the main signal in this claim. I interpret main signal to be the target
`
`signal of Claim 25.
`
`VIII. COMPARISON OF THE ’345 PATENT TO THE PRIOR ART
`
`A. Dreiseitel (1998)
`
`55.
`
`In my opinion, Dreiseitel anticipates ‘607 Claims 1-4, 8, 25-28, and 32.
`
`56. Dreiseitel, presented at a EUSIPO conference in early September 1998,
`
`provides an overview of some aspects of the art of echo and noise control as of
`
`publication. The paper touches on many different subjects including the physics of
`
`the problem, and the nature of their solutions, including adaptive algorithms,
`
`
`
`18
`
`WAVES607_1014-00018
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`subband processing, and beamforming. It is shown how these solutions can be used
`
`individually or in combination for echo suppression.
`
`Anticipation of ‘607 Patent
`
`57. Claim 1: From the Abstract of Dreiseitel:
`
`“This paper presents an overview of the wide range of algorithms which
`are applicable to echo cancellers and noise reduction. Practical problems
`associated with implementation and overall system control are also
`discussed.”
`58. Dreiseitel therefore considers an interference canceling apparatus and
`
`the target signal can be identified as the speech signal that contains noise and echoes.
`
`59. From Section 2.1 of Dreiseitel:
`
`“Audio communication systems include at least one loudspeaker and one
`microphone housed within the same enclosure. Consequently, the
`microphone picks up not only locally generated signals like speech and
`environmental noise but also the signal radiated by the loudspeaker as well
`as its echoes caused by reflections at the boundaries of the enclosure.”
`
`
`Hence Dreiseitel provides for a main input for inputting said target signal.
`
`60. Figures 1 & 2 on page 2 show a speaker signal available as a reference
`
`signal. In Section 3.2, Dreiseitel discusses “pre-whitening the input and reference
`
`signals”. Dreiseitel also discloses an “excitation vector” as another term for
`
`“reference signal” (for example immediately after Equation 2). This reference signal
`
`is input into the reference input of the adaptive filter in Figure 2. Note that the ‘345
`
`
`
`19
`
`WAVES607_1014-00019
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`Patent denotes the signal being input to the reference input as an interference signal,
`
`which I interpret interchangeably with reference signal.
`
`61. Section 3.7 of Dreiseitel includes the description: “Until now, our
`
`discussion of adaptive filters has dealt only with fullband signals, since this is the
`
`most straightforward method of implementation…If a signal is split up into
`
`subbands, once can subsample the resulting signals leading to shorter adaptive echo
`
`cancellers. All of the adaptive algorithms mentioned above are suitable for subband
`
`implementation”. Section 5.6 includes the sentence “Microphone arrays offer
`
`further improvements of noise reduction. A simple approach consists of delay and
`
`sum beamforming, where a control system adapts the direction of maximum
`
`sensitivity toward the near-end speaker”. Hence Dreiseitel discloses a method for
`
`splitting the target and interference signals into a plurality of band-limited signals.
`
`Dreiseitel also clearly discloses an adaptive filter for adaptively filtering, each band-
`
`limited interference signal from each corresponding band-limited target signal.
`
`62. Therefore all the limitations of Claim 1 of the ‘607 Patent are disclosed
`
`and Claim 1 is anticipated.
`
`63. Claim 2: Figures 1 & 2 in Dreiseitel depicts a far-end speaker as input
`
`to the loudspeaker and as a reference signal (“excitation vector”) for the adaptive
`
`filter. The near-end speaker then broadcasts speech generated at the far-end of the
`
`teleconference (target signal from far end). The signal entering the near-end
`
`
`
`20
`
`WAVES607_1014-00020
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`microphone includes the near-end speaker’s voice and one or more echoes of the
`
`reflected far-end speaker’s voice (interference signal represents echo). Therefore,
`
`Claim 2 of ‘607 is anticipated.
`
`64. Claim 3: Section 3.7 of Dreiseitel includes the sentences: “Until now,
`
`our discussion of adaptive filters has dealt only with fullband signals, since this is
`
`the most straightforward method of implementation…If a signal is split up into
`
`subbands, once can subsample the resulting signals leading to shorter adaptive echo
`
`cancellers. All of the adaptive algorithms mentioned above are suitable for subband
`
`implementation”. Figures 4 and 5 depict an array of filters for such subband
`
`processing. Dreiseitel therefore clearly discloses an adaptive filter array, and Claim
`
`3 is anticipated.
`
`65. Claim 4: Section 2.3 includes: “The second unit consists of an adaptive
`
`filter functioning as a replica of the LEMS [loudspeaker-microphone enclosure
`
`system].” In Dreiseitel’s terminology, the “enclosure” could be anything from a
`
`small physical enclosure such as a box, or the interior of a car, to a room that has
`
`significant echoes. Hence, Claim 4 of ‘607 is anticipated.
`
`66. Claim 8: Section 5.6 of Dreiseitel includes the comments:
`
`“Microphone arrays offer further improvements of noise reduction. A
`simple approach consists of delay and sum beamforming, where a control
`system adapts the direction of maximum sensitivity towards the near-end
`speaker. Assuming that the different microphone signals are comprised by
`
`
`
`21
`
`WAVES607_1014-00021
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`correlated speech and uncorrelated noise one yields an improved estimate of
`the noise power spectral density.”
`
`As demonstrated by Dreiseitel, arrays of microphones can be included as part
`
`of an adaptive filter for echo canceling. Hence there is a beam selector for selecting
`
`at least one of a plurality of beams for adaptive filtering, and Claim 8 of ‘607 is
`
`anticipated. Furthermore, if Claim 1 is interpreted so that the “main input” requires
`
`a plurality of signals from a plurality of microphones, Dreiseitel, as described above,
`
`anticipates this case.
`
`67. Claims 25-28 & 32: These Claims are method claims equivalent to the
`
`apparatus Claims 1-4 & 8. All of the discussion already presented therefore applies
`
`and, hence, Dreiseitel anticipates these ‘607 claims as well.
`
`B. Nakagawa (1996)
`
`68.
`
`In my opinion, Nakagawa anticipates Claims 1-4 and 25-28 of the ‘607
`
`Patent.
`
`69. Nakagawa in US Patent 5,774,561 details a subband acoustic echo
`
`canceller which has some improvements over the state of the art in subband
`
`cancellers at the time of filing in 1996. Reference is given to US Patent 5,272,695,
`
`filed in 1991, which is also a description of a subband echo canceller.
`
`70. Figures 2 and 6 of Nakagawa provide a system overview. In Figure 6,
`
`in particular, some aspects of the patent relevant to the ’607 patent are disclosed.
`
`
`
`22
`
`WAVES607_1014-00022
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`This figure has two inputs, at blocks 11 and 13. Block 13 is connected to a
`
`microphone (near-end), and block 11 is a signal that is to be broadcast as a speaker
`
`and also provided as a reference input into block 18X, which contains an analog to
`
`digital converter and provides subband analysis.
`
`Anticipation of ‘607 Patent
`
`71. Claim 1: Nakagawa in Figures 2 and 6 show an input for the target
`
`signal, which comes from the microphone in block 13. As described in col. 1, lines
`
`4-9 of Nakagawa, there are echoes present in the acoustic signal which act as
`
`interference and hence there is an interfering signal. The invention in Nakagawa is
`
`thus an interfering canceling apparatus.
`
`72. Figures 2 and 6 of Nakagawa contains a main input for inputting the
`
`microphone signal (target signal).
`
`73. Figures 2 and 6 of Nakagawa also contains a reference input, block
`
`18X, for the signal that interferes with the main input.
`
`74. Figures 2 and 6 of Nakagawa show the signal entering the main input
`
`and the reference input being split into multiple subbands in blocks 20 and 30,
`
`respectively. Col. 8, lines 6-11, describe block 20 as “a received signal subband
`
`analysis part”, and block 30 as an “echo signal analysis part.” Hence Nakagawa
`
`discloses a method for splitting the target and interference signals into a plurality
`
`of band-limited signals.
`
`
`
`23
`
`WAVES607_1014-00023
`
`Petitioner Waves Audio Ltd. 607 - Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`75. Figures 2 and 6 of Nakagawa also show blocks 15k that are described
`
`in col. 1, lines 55-65 as a digital FIR (finite impulse response) filter. Block 16k “uses
`
`an LMS (Least Nean Square), normalized LMS (NLMS) algorithm or similar
`
`algorithm”. Col. 12, line 48 describes the blocks
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
