IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DIGITAL AUDIO ENCODING SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2016-01710
`Patent 7,490,037
`
`DECLARATION OF LEONARD LAUB
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01710
`UNIFIED EX1002
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 2 
`I. 
`II.  BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................................. 2 
`III.  LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................... 7 
`A. 
`Anticipation ................................................................................................ 7 
`B. 
`Obviousness ............................................................................................... 8 
`IV.  SUMMARY OF MY STUDY ....................................................................... 10 
`V.  ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................ 11 
`VI.  KNOWLEDGE OF ONE SKILLED IN THE ART BY JULY 1997 ............ 11 
`A. 
`Encoding ................................................................................................... 12 
`B. 
`Negotiation of Encoding Format between Sender and Receiver ............. 22 
`VII. 
`THE PROBLEM ALLEGEDLY SOLVED BY THE ʼ037 PATENT ....... 25 
`A. 
`Sender and Receiver Both Use the Same Coding Format ....................... 26 
`B. 
`Sender and Receiver Negotiate a Common Coding Format .................... 28 
`C. 
`Other Alleged Inventions ......................................................................... 29 
`1.  Bi-Directional Operation .......................................................................... 29 
`2.  User Control ............................................................................................. 30 
`VIII.  PRIOR ART REFERENCES ...................................................................... 31 
`The Riddle Reference ............................................................................... 31 
`A. 
`The Norris Reference ............................................................................... 35 
`B. 
`The Hinderks Reference ........................................................................... 37 
`C. 
`The Yabusaki Reference ........................................................................... 38 
`D. 
`The Menezes Reference ............................................................................ 40 
`E. 
`IX.  COMBINATIONS OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................................... 41 
`Modifications to Riddle ............................................................................ 41 
`A. 
`Modifications to Norris from Hinderks ................................................... 44 
`B. 
`Modifications to Norris and Hinderks with Yabusaki ............................. 48 
`C. 
`Modifications to Norris and Hinderks with Menezes .............................. 50 
`D. 
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`I, Leonard Laub, hereby declare:
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Counsel for Petitioner Unified Patents Inc.
`
`(“Unified” or “Petitioner”) to provide opinions on certain issues concerning Inter
`
`Partes Review No. IPR2016-01710 of U.S. Patent No. 7,490,037 (“the ʼ037
`
`Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to opine on the matters set forth below. I make
`
`these statements based upon facts and matters within my own knowledge or on
`
`information provided to me by others. All such facts and matters are true to the
`
`best of my knowledge and belief.
`
`3.
`
`I am the President of Keryston Associates, Inc. (“Keryston”). My firm
`
`is compensated at a rate of $300 per hour for my work on this matter. This
`
`compensation is not dependent on my opinions or testimony or the outcome of this
`
`matter.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree in Physics, with a minor in
`
`Mathematics, from the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1970. I then pursued a
`
`Master’s degree in Mathematics from Northeastern Illinois University, and a Ph.D.
`
`degree in Physics from Northwestern University.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`6.
`
`I have over 50 years of professional experience in encoding,
`
`transmission, storage, decoding, and presentation of digitized audio and video
`
`signals, optics and optical systems design, lasers and laser applications, search and
`
`database techniques, telecommunications, technology licensing, and many other
`
`fields of commercial significance. I am named as an inventor on 20 patents. I have
`
`been a member of the Audio Engineering Society for over 40 years.
`
`7.
`
`I have been President of Keryston and its predecessor Vision Three,
`
`Inc. for over 35 years. Keryston provides professional consulting services to
`
`companies, investors, and government agencies relating to business and technical
`
`matters in a wide range of industries including audio and video recording, storage,
`
`transmission, and presentation; broadcast, mobile, and fiber telecommunications;
`
`computer and storage networks; mass data storage and retrieval; advanced energy
`
`storage and power generation; consumer electronics; optical and photographic
`
`systems; and microelectronics and display design and manufacture. Such
`
`consulting services include working with clients on specific business and
`
`technology projects, assisting with definition and optimization of products and
`
`business models, development, protection, and licensing of intellectual property,
`
`and other technology and business issues. Keryston also provides professional
`
`expert witness services.
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`8.
`
`At Keryston, I have been frequently called upon to provide my expert
`
`opinion on matters concerning patent disputes. I have consultatively supported
`
`counsel and/or been qualified as a technical expert in over 50 litigation matters,
`
`including in areas that relate to the technology described in the ‘037 Patent.
`
`However, I have not testified in any of these cases during the last four years.
`
`9.
`
`In my professional career, I worked for Zenith Radio Corporation,
`
`Xerox Corporation, and Exxon Corporation before starting my current consulting
`
`practice. My consulting clients have included Agilent, Du Pont, Exxon, Fuji Photo
`
`Film, Fujitsu, Funai, General Electric, Google, IBM, ICI, MediaTek, Microsoft,
`
`3M, Mitsubishi, NCR, NTT, Olympus, Philips, Ricoh, Samsung, Seagate, Sony,
`
`Thomson (now Technicolor), Toshiba, and Warner Bros, plus many young,
`
`growing, and evolving companies worldwide.
`
`10. The following is a summary of my professional experience relevant to
`
`these proceedings:
`
`11. Zenith (1968-1973) – development of techniques for bandwidth
`
`reduction encoding and decoding of audio and video content (patent granted on
`
`video technique);
`
`Xerox and Star Systems (1976-1981) – built from scratch business making
`
`large-scale systems for digital storing, networking, and retrieval of image and text
`
`4
`
`

`
`information; issues addressed included data bit-rate reduction, encoding, and
`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`decoding;
`
`Infodetics (1984-1988) – devised and supported investigation of techniques
`
`for bit-rate reduction, encoding, and reconstruction of still and moving images;
`
`Philips (ca. 1986) – consulted on digital rights management for audio, still
`
`image, and video content for standalone and networked interactive multimedia
`
`systems; and
`
`Thomson (now Technicolor) (2000-2005) – consulted on adaptive variable
`
`rate coding for speech and general audio and on automatic audio content
`
`identification.
`
`12. The following is a summary of related case experience I have had in
`
`this field:
`
`13. Sendo (2004) – analyzed hardware and software of touch-screen-
`
`driven smartphones;
`
`Digital Choice v. Toshiba (client) et al. (2006) – Patent litigation – issues
`
`included tagging stored content;
`
`MediaTek (client) v. Sanyo (2006-7) – Patent litigation – issues included
`
`audio and video data encoding, decoding and bit-rate reduction in digital television
`
`receivers;
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`Funai (client) v. Proview, TPV, Vizio, AmTRAN et al. (2008-10), Zenith
`
`v. Funai (client) et al. (2009), Sony (client) v. Vizio (2009), Amtran v. Funai
`
`(client) et al. (2009-10) - MPEG audio and video encoding, decoding, and bit-rate
`
`reduction for digital television;
`
`IntraVisual v. Fujitsu Microelectronics America (client) et al. (2011) –
`
`Patent litigation – audio and video encoding, decoding, and bit-rate reduction,
`
`content-descriptive metadata generation, extraction, and analysis in digital
`
`television; and
`
`Black Hills Media (client) v. Sonos et al. (2014-2015) – Patent litigation –
`
`conducted tests, reviewed source code, determined best approach to showing
`
`infringement and validity of BHM patents covering, among other things, handling
`
`of diverse digital audio encoding and bit-rate-reduction formats in random access
`
`and streaming of digital media over wireless networks among network nodes and
`
`between nodes and central equipment.
`
`14. By virtue of the above experience, I have gained a detailed
`
`understanding of the technology that is at issue in this proceeding. My experience
`
`with encoding, compression, transmission, storage, decoding, decompression, and
`
`presentation of digitized audio and video signals, and of general digital data, is
`
`directly relevant to the subject matter of the ‘037 Patent.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`13. I believe I am qualified to provide opinions about how one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in July 1997 would have interpreted and understood the ʼ037 Patent
`
`and the art relied upon by the Petitioner as discussed below.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference
`
`discloses, explicitly or inherently, all limitations of the claim arranged or combined
`
`in the same way as in the claim. I further understand that inherency may not be
`
`established by probabilities or possibilities, and the fact that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art understands that the missing limitation could exist under certain
`
`circumstances is not sufficient. Instead, the party claiming inherency must prove
`
`that the missing matter is necessarily present and that it would be so recognized by
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Whether the inherent disclosure was
`
`recognized at the time of the reference is immaterial.
`
`16.
`
`I further understand that the disclosure of an anticipatory reference
`
`must describe the claimed invention to a degree adequate to enable a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to not only comprehend the invention, but also to make, or
`
`in the case of a method, use, the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
`
`Provided that the reference asserted is enabling, it is my understanding that it need
`
`not disclose any independent use or utility to anticipate a claimed invention.
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`17.
`
`It is my understanding that an invention is unpatentable if the
`
`differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art. I further understand that obviousness is
`
`determined by evaluating: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claim, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`18. To establish obviousness based on a combination of the elements
`
`disclosed in the prior art, it is my understanding that a petitioner must provide a
`
`clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious. This articulation does not require record evidence of an explicit teaching
`
`of a motivation to combine in the prior art. It is my understanding that this
`
`articulation can come from a number of rationales, which include but are not
`
`limited to (1) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (2) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (3) use of known technique to improve similar devices,
`
`methods, or products in the same way; (4) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (5)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`reasonable expectation of success, i.e., the combination is “obvious to try”; (6)
`
`known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either
`
`the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces
`
`if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and (7) some
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed limitation.
`
`19.
`
`I further understand that these rationales may be found explicitly or
`
`implicitly: (1) in the prior art; (2) in the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the
`
`art that certain references, or disclosures in those references, are of special interest
`
`or importance in the field; or (3) from the nature of the problem to be solved.
`
`Additionally, I understand that the legal determination of the motivation to
`
`combine references allows recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense. In
`
`order to resist the temptation to read into prior art the teachings of the invention in
`
`issue, however, it should be apparent that the expert is not conflating “common
`
`sense” and what appears obvious in hindsight.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that if the teachings of a prior art would lead a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to make a modification that would render another prior art
`
`device inoperable, then such a modification would generally not be obvious. I also
`
`understand that if a proposed modification would render the prior art invention
`
`9
`
`

`
`being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion
`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`or motivation to make the proposed modification.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I understand that a reference may be
`
`said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, upon reading
`
`the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
`
`reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by
`
`the applicant. In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
`
`development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of
`
`the result sought by the patentee. I understand that a reference teaches away, for
`
`example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or
`
`(2) the references leave the impression that the product would not have the
`
`property sought by the patentee. I also understand, however, that a reference does
`
`not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative
`
`invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation
`
`into the invention claimed.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF MY STUDY
`
`22.
`
`I have read the ʼ037 Patent and have considered its disclosure from
`
`the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art in July 1997 in the field of
`
`the invention, and in light of the references cited by the Petitioner.
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`V. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`23.
`
`It is my opinion that the relevant field with respect to the ʼ037 Patent
`
`is encoding and decoding of signals, particularly digitized audio signals. The level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art is a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a
`
`related subject, and at least three years of experience working with digital audio
`
`encoding and compression techniques.
`
`24.
`
`In reaching the opinions contained herein, I have considered the types
`
`of problems encountered in the art in July 1997, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, and the education level and professional capabilities of workers in the
`
`field. The basis of my familiarity with the level of skill in the art is my years of
`
`interaction with large numbers of workers in the field and my knowledge of the
`
`technical issues in the field.
`
`VI. KNOWLEDGE OF ONE SKILLED IN THE ART BY JULY 1997
`
`25. At the time of the ‘037 invention (July 1997) encoding and
`
`compression (and the complementary decompression and decoding) of digitized
`
`audio signals was a well-established concept with widely adopted standards and
`
`formats
`
`(e.g., mp3, Musicam/MP2, Dolby AC-3).1 Transmission
`
`(and
`
`complementary reception) of digital data was also a well-established concept with
`
`
`1 EX1013 at 23-25.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`widely adopted standards and formats (e.g., ISDN, T1/E1, RS-232, RS-485).2
`
`Together these concepts were found in commercial products including long-
`
`distance telephony, audio and audio-video teleconferencing, and digital audio
`
`broadcasting.
`
`A. Encoding
`
`26. All these concepts and products rely on certain basic considerations.
`
`First, sending large volumes or long streams of digital data over any transmission
`
`channel requires that data to be prepared and packaged (e.g., in “packets”) in a
`
`format containing segments of the data, which itself may be prepared to make it,
`
`e.g., more compact, secure, robust, etc., to be transmitted along with information
`
`to, e.g., identify and describe the data, designate recipient(s) for the data, provide
`
`for detection or correction of errors in transmission,, etc. Such preparation and
`
`packaging is typically referred to as “encoding.” The term “encoding” broadly
`
`refers to the representation of a piece of information in another form.
`
`“Compression” and “encryption” are two terms that are subsets of “encoding,” as
`
`each represents a piece of information in another form, size-reduced or scrambled
`
`respectively.
`
`
`2 EX1005 at 2:31-33, 29:64-65, 31:13-14.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`27. Next, all channels over which digital data can be transmitted have
`
`limited bandwidth or bit rate (i.e., how many bits per second can be transmitted),
`
`either at all or in terms of the price charged by providers of the digital channel per
`
`unit of bandwidth or bit rate on that channel. Digitizing high-quality audio and
`
`video content produces a signal with high bit rate, high enough so channel
`
`bandwidth limitations or cost issues set the need to reduce the bit rate to be
`
`transmitted. This is done by one of many techniques and processes for
`
`“compression,” which is also often called “bit-rate reduction” because compression
`
`algorithms exist and operate to reduce the bit rate of the signal. When compression
`
`is used, it is understood to be part of what is referred to as “encoding.”
`
`28. The range of compression techniques known in the art by July 1997
`
`for digital data was wide, including some effective on any kind of digital data, and
`
`others specialized to specific types of digital data. Among these types of digital
`
`data, digital files (that is, blocks of data of known length) are often compressed by
`
`techniques which consider the entire file. The term “signals” applies to streams of
`
`digital data, for which compression techniques that can be applied continuously as
`
`the signal continues are available. When the digital data files or signals are
`
`carrying digitized audio or video, more specialized compression techniques are
`
`available. Since the stations, terminals, or personal computers (or tablets or
`
`phones) which carry out these techniques all are or comprise digital computers, it
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`is necessary first to digitize the audio signals supplied in their original analog form.
`
`Among the most effective such techniques, particularly for radical bit-rate
`
`reduction (high “compression ratio”) are those broadly referred to as “perceptual
`
`coders” Perceptual coders for compressing digitized audio (such as mp3, which
`
`grew out of research dating back at least to 1987 and was codified and made public
`
`in the MPEG-2 standard in 1992)3 rely on psycho-acoustic principles, specifically
`
`models of human hearing and the tolerance of humans for subtle changes or losses
`
`of subtle detail in audio content as recovered by decoding perceptually coded
`
`content. Psycho-acoustically based coders for digital audio produce great (and thus
`
`greatly commercially valuable because less channel bandwidth is required, and
`
`thus attractive to implementers) bit-rate reductions. For example, the popular mp3
`
`coder for music can take a digitized audio signal with a rate of millions of bits per
`
`second and reduce that rate to tens of thousands of bits per second while preserving
`
`sound quality acceptable at least to casual listeners (e.g., people listening while
`
`riding a bus or train). Coders used for long distance telephony can take digitized
`
`voice with a rate of 64,000 bits per second and reduce that rate to 9600 bits per
`
`second while preserving acceptable intelligibility and quality. In a similar way,
`
`perceptual coders for compressing digitized video (such as the H.261, RPZA, and
`
`
`3 EX1013 at 23.
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`JPEG codecs, all codified and implemented by 1997)4 rely on psycho-visual
`
`principles, specifically models of human vision and the tolerance of humans for
`
`subtle changes or losses of subtle detail in video content as recovered by decoding
`
`perceptually coded content. The MPEG-2 video codec codified in 1994 routinely
`
`takes high-definition digital video with a raw bit rate about 1.5 billion bits per
`
`second (1080 lines x 1920 pixels per line x 12 bits per pixel in 4:4:4 mode x 60
`
`frames per second in 1080p mode) and compresses that to 19 million bits per
`
`second,5 a compression ratio of almost 80.
`
`29. Many different types of communication channel were known in the art
`
`by July 1997 to be useful for transmitting digitized audio signals, and each of these
`
`had its own characteristic bit rate, ranging from, e.g., 56,000 bits per second for a
`
`typical modem to millions or tens of millions of bits per second for the Ethernet
`
`and token ring interfaces. Many compression techniques can be scaled or otherwise
`
`set to deliver compressed content at one or another bit rate compatible with the
`
`current transmission channel and receiver. For example, the popular mp3 encoding
`
`format can be set to deliver compressed digitized audio at bit rates such as 64,000
`
`
`4 EX1003 at 9:55-56.
`
`5 EX1038 at 17.
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`bits per second (64 kb/s), 128 kb/s, or 256 kb/s.6 Bit rate is not the only parameter
`
`which can be set for some compression techniques. Some are also capable of
`
`variable-bit-rate (“VBR”) encoding.7 This dynamically adjusts the bit rate of the
`
`compressed digitized audio to allow greater bit-rate reduction during, e.g., quiet or
`
`simple passages in a music program, but can only be used in conjunction with a
`
`receiver having a decompressor that can do variable-bit-rate decoding.
`
`30.
`
`In order to permit an audio program to be transmitted without
`
`interruptions in or losses of audio content, the compression format or scaling or
`
`setting of that format should be chosen so the bit rate of the compressed audio is no
`
`higher than the bit rate of the transmission channel. This permits what is often
`
`called “real time” transmission of the audio, in which the audio content moves
`
`continuously through encoder, transmission channel and decoder. Alternatively,
`
`when feasible, the compression format and settings of the encoder can be chosen to
`
`provide a specific required level of quality in the decoded audio, and a
`
`transmission channel capable of handling the bit rate resulting from this encoding
`
`is chosen and used.
`
`
`6 EX1013 at 23.
`
`7 EX1013 at 2, 15, 19.
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`31.
`
`Implementation of real-time operation necessarily requires the
`
`processors performing compression and decompression to have enough processing
`
`power (e.g., operations per second) to keep up with this continuous flow of audio
`
`content. This would necessarily lead a codec user (human or automatic) in 1997 (or
`
`at any other time) to user to select a compression format and, where feasible,
`
`parameters thereof to keep the computation workload for the processors in the
`
`current sender and receiver within the power of those processors.8 To the extent
`
`that, e.g., interfaces connecting stations to a transmission channel also have bit-rate
`
`or processing power limitations, the compression format must necessarily be
`
`selected also to keep the bit-rate and/or the computation workload within those
`
`limits.
`
`32. Typical compressors and decompressors known in the art by July
`
`1997 necessarily require some form and size of data storage device connected to
`
`the encoding or decoding processor at least to store intermediate results in the
`
`computations which carry out the compression or decompression. Since the storage
`
`device will have limits to both the rate at which it can accept data and the total
`
`volume of data it can accept, the encoding format must be selected so processing
`
`the encoded signal does not exceed those limits of the storage device.
`
`
`8 EX1003 at 5:3-6, 8:13-16.
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`33. As known in the art by July 1997, there can be circumstances in
`
`which, e.g., an automatic codec selector may not make the best choice, or may take
`
`too much time making a choice. In such circumstances, as known in the art by July
`
`1997, an implementer would be motivated to provide or include in an encoder an
`
`option for prompting the user to make manual selection or tuning of some or all
`
`settings of a codec and to receive those settings.9 This necessarily would include at
`
`least some form of display to present the prompt and some form of input device
`
`(e.g., knobs, buttons, or sliders, either physical or depicted on a display and
`
`operated by touch or with a cursor control device such as a mouse). This input
`
`device may be built physically into the encoder or, as was known in the art by July
`
`1997, provided in a separate unit connected to the encoder by a cable carrying
`
`setting information using, e.g., the RS-232 format.10
`
`34. Because any receiver receiving the signal encoded by a user adjusted
`
`codec must necessarily be set in a comparable way in order to be able to decode
`
`that encoded signal, it was known in the art by July 1997 to equip the sending
`
`codec and all receiving codecs with means to transmit to all the receiving codecs
`
`the settings of the sending codec and to equip all the receiving codecs with means
`
`
`9 EX1005 at 3:47-51.
`
`10 EX1005 at 29:63-65.
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`to make all those settings automatically from the transmitted settings information.11
`
`This permitted a system with many receiving stations to get and stay in
`
`coordination without user visits to any of the receiving stations.
`
`35.
`
`If the current job is sending a block of data rather than a signal
`
`continuing indefinitely, the codec can be equipped with a display showing the
`
`progress of that job; i.e., how long the job has been running, or how long the job
`
`has to run. This can be expressed in units of time and/or in percentage of the entire
`
`job. As known in the art by July 1997, such a progress indicator can take the form
`
`of a moving or evolving bar generated by the processor and presented graphically
`
`on the display. An example of such a progress bar from a February 1997
`
`publication12 is shown below:
`
`
`11 EX1003 at 1:58-63, 19:15-19, 1:48-52, 7:65-8:6, 8:13-16.
`
`12 EX1039
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`
`
`36.
`
`It was also known in the art by July 1997 to use a display on a codec
`
`to show current level (strength) of the audio signal being encoded.13 This helps an
`
`operator adjust the level of the signal supplied to the encoder to assure that signal
`
`is neither overloading the encoder (too high a level) or so faint (too low a level)
`
`that the encoder is not delivering a high quality signal. An example of such a level
`
`display14 is shown below.
`
`
`13 EX1005 at 27:37-38, Fig. 11.
`
`14 EX1005 at Fig. 11.
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`
`
`37.
`
`If the current job requires combining several concurrent audio signals
`
`to a single signal to be encoded and transmitted, it was known in the art by July
`
`1997 to use a mixer to accept several concurrent monophonic or stereophonic
`
`signals and combine them in a suitable balance into a single signal. Shown below
`
`are a typical arrangement of audio signals into and out of a mixer sold in 199515:
`
`
`15 EX1040 at 2.6.
`
`21
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`
`
`B. Negotiation of Encoding Format between Sender and Receiver
`
`38. Encoding formats for digitized audio signals are numerous, partly
`
`because various companies an entities want to use proprietary formats, partly
`
`because coder technology continues to evolve, providing greater bit rate reductions
`
`with equal or better preservation of content quality. These various encoding
`
`formats are typically mutually incompatible, so some way must be found to present
`
`data to a receiver in a format the receiver knows how to decode. If the sender and
`
`receiver are both fixed in format and those formats are incompatible, it is possible
`
`to follow the sender or precede with receiver with another device that can
`
`22
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01710 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,490,037
`
`“transcode” or “re-code;” that is, receive and decode the sender’s format, then
`
`recode the recovered data into the receiver’s format. This is undesirable both
`
`because of the need for additional equipment and because each additional encoding
`
`step will lose some quality of the original content.
`
`39. An alternative known in the art by July 1997 is to make at least one of
`
`the sender and receiver capable of more than one encoding or decoding format.16
`
`This increases the likelihood that the two devices will have at least one format in
`
`common, permitting successful transmission of encoded data without re-coding. As
`
`known in the art by July 1997, whichever station is capable of more than one
`
`format can either be manually (by user action) directed to a specific format,17 or
`
`the two stations can communicate with each other prior to a transmission
`
`automatically to negotiate a common format.18 As was known in the art by July
`
`1997, such a negotiation uses a special signal sent by to one station to test another
`
`station to determine the capabilities of that station so that station can be set to
`
`receive in a format to which the sender is also set. Examples of such test signals
`
`known in the art by July 1997 include lists of the sender station’s capabilities, to be
`
`
`16