UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 6,363,345
`Issued: March 26, 2002
`Filed: February 18, 1999
`
`Inventors: Joseph Marash, et al.
`Titles: SYSTEM, METHOD, AND APPARATUS FOR CANCELLING NOISE
`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF BERTRAND HOCHWALD REGARDING U.S.
`PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. i
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Engagement ........................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................. 1
`C.
`Compensation and Prior Testimony ...................................................... 4
`D.
`Information Considered ......................................................................... 4
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY ...................................... 5
`II.
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................... 6
`B.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 7
`III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE ’345 PATENT........... 9
`A.
`Effective Filing Date of the ’345 Patent ............................................... 9
`B.
`The Prosecution History of The ’345 Patent ......................................... 9
`C.
`Technical Field .................................................................................... 10
`D.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 10
`IV. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................. 11
`A. Digital Audio Signals .......................................................................... 11
`B.
`Signal Processing ................................................................................ 14
`C.
`Filtering ............................................................................................... 22
`D.
`Spectral Subtraction ............................................................................ 23
`V. ANALYSIS OF THE ’345 PATENT ......................................................... 26
`A. Overview of the ’345 Patent ................................................................ 26
`1. Boll Summary ............................................................................... 27
`2. Improvements to Boll (1979) prior to Filing of ’345 Patent......... 29
`3. The ’345 Patent’s Purported Improvements to Boll ..................... 31
`B.
`Construction of Terms Used in the ’345 Patent Claims ...................... 34
`1. Background on the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ............... 34
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. ii
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`C.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`2. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Terms of the ’345
`Patent ............................................................................................. 35
`a) “magnitude” (claims 1, 38) .................................................... 35
`b) “frequency spectrum generator” / ”generating the frequency
`spectrum” (claims 1, 38) ........................................................ 36
`c) “threshold detector for setting a threshold… and for
`detecting” (claim 1) ................................................................ 36
`d) “generating a noise canceling signal for canceling noise” ..... 36
`e) “current minimum value” (claims 4, 6, 8, 10-11, 39) ............ 37
`f) “future minimum value” (claims 4-7, 9, 39-41) ..................... 38
`VI.
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................. 39
`VII. ANALYSIS OF THE PRIOR ART AND ’345 CLAIMS ........................ 40
`A. Hirsch .................................................................................................. 40
`1. Overview of Hirsch ....................................................................... 40
`2. Hirsch Describes the Elements of Claims 1-3, 12, 13, 21,
`23, and 38 of the ’345 Patent ........................................................ 44
`B. Martin .................................................................................................. 48
`1. Overview of Martin ....................................................................... 48
`2. A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Considered Hirsh
`and Martin Together ...................................................................... 50
`3. Martin Describes the Elements of Claims 4-11 and 39-42 of
`the ’345 Patent ............................................................................... 54
`4. Hirsch and Martin Render Claims 25 and 46 of the ’345
`Patent Obvious .............................................................................. 62
`Boll ...................................................................................................... 62
`1. Overview of Boll ........................................................................... 62
`2. A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Considered Hirsh
`and Boll Together .......................................................................... 63
`3. Hirsch and Boll Render Claims 13-14, 17-20, 43, and 47 of
`the ’345 Patent Obvious ................................................................ 63
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. iii
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`4. Hirsch and Boll Render Claims 21 and 23 of the ’345 Patent
`Obvious ......................................................................................... 68
`D. Additional Combinations .................................................................... 69
`1. Other References ........................................................................... 69
`a) Overview of Arslan ................................................................ 69
`b) Overview of Uesugi ................................................................ 72
`2. Hirsh, Martin, Boll ........................................................................ 73
`a) A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Considered Hirsh,
`Martin, and Boll, Together ..................................................... 73
`b) Hirsch, Martin, and Boll Render Claim 43 Obvious .............. 73
`3. Hirsh, Boll, and Arslan ................................................................. 75
`a) A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Considered Hirsh,
`Boll, and Arslan Together ...................................................... 75
`b) Arslan, Boll, and Hirsch Render Claims 15-16 and 24
`Obvious ................................................................................... 76
`4. Hirsch, Martin, and Uesugi ........................................................... 79
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. iv
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Engagement
`1.
`I have been retained by counsel for Apple Inc. as an expert witness in
`
`the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to provide an opinion
`
`regarding the patentability of certain claims in U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`
`(“the ’345 Patent”) (Exhibit 1001). I have been asked to provide a discussion of
`
`the meaning of certain words and phrases in the claims of the ’345 patent, to
`
`provide a description of state of the art of the technology described in the ’345
`
`patent, and to analyze various references that I understand are prior art to these
`
`patents.
`
`B.
`2.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`In 1995 I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Yale
`
`University. My PhD work involved the analysis and processing of electromagnetic
`
`and audio signals for the estimation of the location of electromagnetic and audio
`
`sources. In 1993 I received 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.
`
`3.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 1
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`4. 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, radio-frequency circuits, and signal design and processing. I advise
`
`graduate students who are attaining Ph.D. degrees through research and
`
`coursework.
`
`5.
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`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. As a result of my research, I obtained many patents and wrote numerous
`
`publications across a variety of areas in communication theory, information theory,
`
`and circuit design.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 2
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`7.
`
`Prior to Bell Laboratories, I was a Visiting Assistant Professor at the
`
`University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign during the 1995-1996 school year,
`
`where I worked on a broad range of research topics related to signal processing and
`
`communications.
`
`8.
`
`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. In this job I designed communication equipment for the
`
`sampling, filtering and processing of audio signals.
`
`9.
`
`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 been an invited
`
`and plenary speaker at several international conferences throughout the world and
`
`have received awards and recognition for my research and publications.
`
`10.
`
`I have 45 granted patents in a variety of areas related to
`
`communication and signal processing systems. I have had experience drafting and
`
`successfully prosecuting my own patents, and have worked with other experts in
`
`signal processing systems as a co-inventor and co-author.
`
`11.
`
`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 A, attached to the end of this declaration.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 3
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`12. A copy of my CV has been attached as Exhibit B.
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Testimony
`13.
`I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $600 per hour for
`
`my work in connection with this matter. I am being reimbursed for reasonable and
`
`customary expenses associated with my work in this investigation. 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.
`
`14. Within the last five years, I have testified by deposition in: Airvana v.
`
`Ericsson. I have also testified at Andrea Electronics v. Lenovo. I also submitted
`
`declarations in IPR2016-00459, IPR2016-00461, and IPR2016-00474 on behalf of
`
`Waves Audio.
`
`D.
`Information Considered
`15. My opinions are based on my years of education, research, and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this report and those
`
`listed in the Exhibit List included with the petition.
`
`16.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Patent Owner. I may also consider additional
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 4
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions—including
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`17. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing,
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`18. Certain basic legal principles have been explained to me by counsel
`
`for Apple. Below, I have recorded these legal standards as they were explained to
`
`me.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found
`
`patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what was
`
`known before the invention was made.
`
`20.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and can
`
`include patents and printed publications. I also understand that a patent will be
`
`prior art if it was filed before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed
`
`invention, while a printed publication will be prior art if it was publicly available
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 5
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`before that date. I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`evaluated to show unpatentability is limited to patents and printed publications.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Apple has the burden of proving
`
`that the challenged claims are unpatentable over the prior art by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance of the evidence” is evidence
`
`sufficient to show that a fact is more likely true than it is not.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`A. Anticipation
`23.
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior art,
`
`each and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or inherently, in
`
`a single prior art reference as recited in the claim.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that claim limitations that are not expressly described in
`
`a prior art reference may still be there if they are “inherent” to the thing or process
`
`being described in the prior art.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that it can be acceptable to consider evidence other than
`
`the information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is
`
`necessarily present in or inherently described by that document.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 6
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`26.
`
`I understand that if a reference incorporates other documents by
`
`reference, the incorporating reference and the incorporated reference(s) should be
`
`treated as a single prior art reference for purposes of analyzing anticipation.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that to be anticipatory, a reference must not only
`
`explicitly or inherently disclose every claimed feature, but those features must also
`
`be “arranged as in the claim.” Differences between the prior art reference and a
`
`claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not
`
`anticipation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`28.
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made. I understand that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`obvious, one must consider the following four factors: (i) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, (ii) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (iii)
`
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (iv) objective
`
`factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness, if present (such as commercial
`
`success or industry praise).
`
`29.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 7
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by those in the field; the taking
`
`of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by experts and those
`
`skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee proceeded
`
`contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. I also understand that any of this
`
`evidence must be specifically connected to the invention rather than being
`
`associated with the prior art or with marketing or other efforts to promote an
`
`invention. I am not presently aware of any evidence of “objective factors”
`
`suggesting the claimed methods are not obvious, and reserve my right to address
`
`any such evidence if it is identified in the future.
`
`30.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the Supreme Court has rejected a rigid approach to
`
`determining the question of obviousness, such as one that requires a challenger to
`
`identify a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine” known elements.
`
`Instead, a challenger needs to articulate reasoning for combining known elements.
`
`Such reasoning can be based on design considerations, market demands, looking to
`
`solutions to related problems in related fields, and on the “ordinary innovation”
`
`and creativity that would be applied by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 8
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`32.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`more prior art references discourages or leads away from the line of inquiry
`
`disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention
`
`simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is
`
`better or preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`
`clear indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it
`
`would not work or explicit statements saying the combination should not be made).
`
`III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE ’345 PATENT
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ’345 Patent
`33. The ’345 patent issued from Application No. 09/252,874 filed on
`
`February 18, 1999. It does not claim the benefit of priority to any other application.
`
`Accordingly, it is my understanding that the effective filing date of the ’345 patent
`
`claims is no earlier than February 18, 1999.
`
`B.
`34.
`
`The Prosecution History of The ’345 Patent
`
`I understand that the ’345 patent claims were initially rejected under
`
`the following grounds: (1) failure to submit a legible IDS, (2) obviousness-type
`
`double patenting, and (3) being indefinite or not enabled. [’345 file history.
`
`(Exhibit 1002)] Following the submission of additional documentation, the
`
`Examiner withdrew rejections (1)-(2). [’345 file history]. After Patent Owner
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 9
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`amended the claims, the Examiner withdrew the § 112 rejection and allowed them.
`
`[’345 file history].
`
`C. Technical Field
`35. The ’345 disclosure generally relates to digital signal processing
`
`techniques that are used to reduce the noise present in an audio speech signal [‘345,
`
`Abstract (Exhibit 1001)].
`
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`36.
`I have been instructed that the claims of a patent are to be reviewed
`
`from the point of view of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the filing of the patent.
`
`37.
`
`I believe a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’345
`
`patent in February 1999 would have been someone with a good working
`
`knowledge of digital signal processing techniques and their applications. The
`
`person would have gained this knowledge through an undergraduate education in
`
`electrical engineering or a comparable field, in combination with either a graduate
`
`degree (or two years of graduate work) in electrical engineering or a comparable
`
`field, or through two years of practical work experience, where such graduate
`
`education or work experience focused on or involved the use of digital signal
`
`processing techniques.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 10
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`38.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have considered the issues from the
`
`perspective of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art on February 18,
`
`1999.
`
`IV. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`A. Digital Audio Signals
`39. What humans perceive as sound is the physical vibrations of air (or
`
`another medium, such as water). For example, when a string on a musical
`
`instrument is played, the string vibrates and causes the air nearby to oscillate in
`
`responses. The oscillation propagates through the air, attenuating with distance.
`
`The oscillation of the air can be detected by the ear drum, which humans perceive
`
`as a sound. [Deller et al., Discrete-Time Processing of Speech Signals, at 99-101.
`
`(Deller is Exhibit 1012)]
`
`40. An audio signal is a representation of sound. A standard graphical
`
`representation of the audio signal is a sinusoidal wave, with time on the x-axis, and
`
`signal amplitude on the y-axis [Oppenheim and Willsky, Signals and Systems,
`
`Prentice Hall, 1979, at pg. 16 (Oppenheim is Exhibit 1014)] .
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 11
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`
`
`This graph depicts the oscillation of the air over time. This is referred as being a
`
`time domain representation of the sound. In other words, the x-axis represents
`
`time.
`
`41. Two of the properties of a sound wave that are particularly relevant to
`
`human hearing are its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude refers to how tall or
`
`high along the y-axis the signal is, and it roughly corresponds to how loud the
`
`sound would be. A tall wave is loud, while a small wave along the y-axis is quiet.
`
`The size of a sound wave is measured in decibels (dB). A conversation is
`
`considered at normal levels if the speech level at the listeners is 60 dB.
`
`42. Frequency refers to how quickly the signal oscillates and corresponds
`
`to the pitch of the sound (or the musical note). A slowly oscillating wave creates a
`
`low-pitched noise, while a quickly oscillate wave creates a high-pitched noise.
`
`Frequency is measure in Hertz (Hz), which means cycles per second. In the figure
`
`above, if the x-axis represents one second of time, then approximately three cycles
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 12
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`occur in one second, representing a 3 Hz signal. Normal human hearing is
`
`sensitive to signals in the range of 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. A 20 Hz signal
`
`corresponds to a very low tone, and a 20,000 Hz represents a very high one.
`
`43.
`
`In digital signal processing an analog signal is converted into a digital
`
`representation of the signal by “sampling” the signal. A sample is the amplitude of
`
`the wave at a particular point in time. This process is illustrated below. The red
`
`line represents the audio signal and each blue dot represent a single sample.
`
`The result is that the computer stores a set of points that represent the continuous
`
`audio signal.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 13
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`
`
`To ensure that the digital samples accurately reflect the sound wave, the samples
`
`must be collected at least twice the rate of the highest frequency in the signal. So
`
`if the audio signal includes frequencies up to 8000 Hz, the samples must be
`
`collected at 16000 Hz (16000 samples per second) or higher.
`
`B.
`Signal Processing
`44. Music, human speech, and many other human perceptible noises are
`
`sounds comprising combinations of sound waves of several different frequencies.
`
`For example, a musical chord is several notes played at the same time, contributing
`
`to the “richness” of the sound. The resulting signal does not necessarily look
`
`sinusoidal anymore.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 14
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`
`
`The example in the figure above shows a signal that is actually a composite of
`
`several different sinusoidal waves, each corresponding to an individual frequency
`
`and amplitude. The resulting signal is not sinusoidal but still has a repetitive
`
`appearance. The above example is an approximation of a square wave (which is
`
`not a speech signal).
`
`45. These figures depict the evolution of the sound wave over time. Just
`
`from looking at the figures, it is difficult to tell which frequencies are present in the
`
`signal. However, using a well-known mathematical formula called the “Fourier
`
`transform”, the sound wave can be separated into its individual frequency
`
`components. Typically, the signal is divided into a set of short frames, and the
`
`frequency components in each frame can be extracted using the Fourier transform.
`
`In digital signal processing, typically a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) or a Discrete
`
`Fourier Transform (DFT) is used for reasons of speed or processing efficiency.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 15
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`46. Performing a Fourier transform on a sound wave changes the wave
`
`from the time domain (where you can see how the amplitude changes over time) to
`
`the frequency domain (where you can see for example the magnitude of the
`
`different frequencies in the sound). In the frequency domain, a graph of the audio
`
`signal often looks like a histogram. The signal is divided into “frequency bins”
`
`where each bin corresponds to one of the frequencies present in the signal. The
`
`index of each frequency bin (x-axis in the figure below) corresponds to the
`
`frequency, and the magnitude in that bin (y-axis) can be thought of as the
`
`magnitude (which is the absolute value of its amplitude) of the signal at that
`
`frequency.
`
`47. Typically the value that the Fourier transform puts into the frequency
`
`bin is a complex number. A complex number is a number that has two
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 16
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`components: a real component and an imaginary component. In the figure below
`
`the x-axis is labeled “Re” for “real” and the y-axis is labeled “Im” for “imaginary”.
`
`
`
`The complex number is indicated on this figure by the black circle in the
`
`upper right. Hence, the complex number is expressed as the pair (x,y), where “x”
`
`
`
`is the real portion and “y” is the imaginary portion.
`
`48. Another way to represent the complex number (x, y) is using the pair
`
`(r, (cid:2030)), where “r” is the magnitude of the complex number and “(cid:2030)” is the phase.
`shows the (r, (cid:2030)) representation. This representation is entirely equivalent to the
`connecting the (x,y) representation and (r,(cid:2030)) representation are
`(cid:1870)=(cid:3493)(cid:1876)(cid:2870)+(cid:1877)(cid:2870)
`(cid:2030)=tan(cid:2879)(cid:2869)(cid:4672)(cid:3052)(cid:3051)(cid:4673)
`49. The (r,(cid:2030)) representation is useful because when the Fourier transform
`
`This representation can be referred to as polar coordinates. The above figure also
`
`(x,y) representation but is perhaps more intuitive for the purposes of analyzing a
`
`frequency bin, and hence I will focus on this representation. The formulas
`
`
`
`of a sinusoid signal with frequency f is taken, the magnitude r of the complex
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 17
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`frequency f contained in the original audio signal. The phase (cid:2030) of the complex
`
`number stored in frequency bin f gives the magnitude of the sinusoid with
`
`number stored in the frequency bin gives the phase of the sinusoid in the original
`
`audio signal. The phase relates to the starting point of the sinusoidal signal. The
`
`two signals below have different phases but are perceived by the ear as the same
`
`tone at the same loudness.
`
`
`
`50. Like other signals, an audio signal can be converted between the time
`
`and frequency domains using a Fourier transform. The audio signal is divided into
`
`short frames, and then an FFT is applied to each frame. The FFT segments the
`
`audio signal into its individual frequencies, measures the magnitude of each, and
`
`the result is the frequency domain representation. The function has an inverse,
`
`allowing the frequency domain representation to be converted back into the time
`
`domain. This process is illustrated below.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 18
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`
`
`The above figure is taken from Wikipedia,1 and I have added annotations.
`
`51. The signal shown above is for the purpose of illustrating the Fourier
`
`transform process, and the signal depicted does not correspond to a typical audio
`
`signal. The shape of speech and sound signals can vary substantially over time.
`
`Examples of signals reflecting simple speech sounds are shown in the time domain
`
`in the center of the figure below, with the corresponding frequency domain
`
`representation on the right.
`
`
`
`1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_domain
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 19
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`
`
`[Deller et al., Discrete-Time Processing of Speech Signals, at 123, 135.] As can be
`
`seen from the frequency domain representation, in the figure above, the top
`
`signal’s primary frequency components are 900 Hz, 2.5 kHz, and 3.5 kHz, while
`
`the bottom signal is mostly a 1 kHz signal.
`
`52.
`
`If a signal is a pure 1000 Hz tone stretching for all time without any
`
`beginning or end, then it has a single frequency component at 1000 Hz. A Fourier
`
`transform of this signal reveals the 1000 Hz component, with all the remaining
`
`components being zero. If a signal is initially silent then comprises a pure 1000 Hz
`
`tone and is then silent again, taking its Fourier transform (which includes the silent
`
`portions) reveals frequency components in addition to the 1000 Hz tone. These
`
`additional frequency components act to “turn on” and “turn off” the signal. Since
`
`speech and most signals that are processed necessarily have a beginning and an end,
`
`Fourier processing of such signals therefore produces frequency “artifacts”,
`
`relevant to the short duration of these signals but not directly relevant to the signal
`
`itself. It is generally desired to mitigate these artifacts by making the processing
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1003, p. 20
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00626
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`blocks as long as possible. But since processing blocks are necessarily limi