UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable Thomas B. Pender
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`)
`In the Matter of
`)
`
`CERTAIN AUDIO PROCESSING HARDWARE )
`AND SOFTWARE AND PRODUCTS
`)
`CONTAINING THE SAME
`)
`
`)
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-949
`
`COMPLAINANT ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORP.’S
`INITIAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`1
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 1
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Legal Standards ................................................................................................................. 16
`
`III.
`
`Background of the Technology ........................................................................................... 7
`
`IV.
`
`The Asserted Patents ......................................................................................................... 11
`
`V.
`
`Argument .......................................................................................................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................................... 18
`
`Complainants’ Proposed Constructions of Disputed Terms ................................. 19
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345......................................................................... 19
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Magnitude of the Frequency Bin / Magnitude of the
`Corresponding Frequency Bin (claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 21, 22,
`38, 39, 40, 44) ............................................................................... 19
`
`Current Minimum Value (claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 39) .................... 24
`
`Future Minimum Value (claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 39, 40) ................... 34
`
`Subtractor for Subtracting said Noise Elements /
`Subtracting said Noise Elements (claims 13, 38) ......................... 35
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,377,637......................................................................... 41
`
`a.
`
`Canceled (claims 1, 5)................................................................... 42
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607......................................................................... 45
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Interference Signal (claims 1, 2, 25, 26) ....................................... 45
`
`Main Signal (claims 5, 8, 12, 29, 32, 36) ...................................... 48
`
`Transform Function (9, 33) ........................................................... 51
`
`Beam Splitter . . . for Beam-Splitting said Target into Band
`Limited Target Signals . . . and Beam-Splitting said
`Interference Signal into Band-Limited Interference Signals
`(claim 1) ........................................................................................ 54
`
`Beam-Splitting said Target Signal into a Plurality of Band
`Limited Target Signals; Beam Splitting said Interference
`Signal into Band-Limited Interference Signals (claim 25) ........... 57
`
`Band-Limited . . . (Target, Interference) . . . Signals (claims
`1, 25) ............................................................................................. 58
`
`Adaptively Filtering . . . Each Band-Limited Interference
`Signal from Each Corresponding Band-Limited Target
`Signal (claim 25) ........................................................................... 61
`
`2
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 2
`
`

`
`C.
`
`Agreed Upon Constructions for Undisputed Terms ............................................. 63
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,636,345......................................................................... 64
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Frequency Bins (claims 1-5, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21-24,
`38-40, 44, 45) ................................................................................ 64
`
`Frequency Spectrum Generator / Generating the Frequency
`Spectrum (claims 1, 38) ................................................................ 64
`
`Threshold Detector / Setting a Threshold (claims 1, 2, 3, 4,
`12, 13, 17, 20, 38) ......................................................................... 64
`
`Detecting the Position of . . . / Detects the Position of . . .
`(claims 1, 2, 3, 12, 38, 42) ............................................................ 64
`
`Noise Estimation Process (claims 1, 38)....................................... 65
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,377,637......................................................................... 65
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Input Means for Inputting a Digital Input Signal / Step[] of
`. . . Inputting a Digital Input Signal (claims 1 and 8) ................... 65
`
`Band Splitting Means for Dividing Said Digital Input
`Signal into a Plurality of Frequency-Limited Time-Domain
`Signal Sub-Bands / Step[] of . . . Dividing said Digital
`Input Signal into a Plurality of Sub-Bands (claims 1, 8) .............. 65
`
`A Plurality of Noise Processing Means Each for Processing
`a Corresponding one of Said Plurality of Signal Sub-Bands
`/ Step[] of . . . Noise Processing a Corresponding One of
`Said Plurality of Sub-Bands (claims 1, 8) ..................................... 66
`
`Exponential Averaging Means / Step[] of . . . Exponential
`Averaging (claims 1, 8)................................................................. 67
`
`Noise Estimating Means / Step[] of . . . Subtraction
`Processing (claims 1, 8) ................................................................ 67
`
`Subtraction Processing Means / Step[] of . . . Subtraction
`Processing (claims 1, 8) ................................................................ 68
`
`Recombining Means for Recombining the Noise Processed
`Plurality of Signal Sub-Bands into a Digital Output Signal /
`Step[] of . . . Recombining the Noise Processed Plurality of
`Sub-Bands into a Digital Output Signal Using a
`Recombining Means ..................................................................... 68
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607......................................................................... 69
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Target Signal (claims 1, 2, 25, 26, 27) .......................................... 69
`
`Reference Signal (claims 2, 4, 5, 12, 26, 28, 29, 37) .................... 69
`
`Main Input for Inputting said Target Signal / Inputting said
`Target Signal (claims 1, 25) .......................................................... 69
`
`3
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 3
`
`

`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Reference Input for Inputting said Interference Signal
`(claim 1) ........................................................................................ 69
`
`Adaptive Filter for Adaptively Filtering (claim 1) ....................... 69
`
`Canceling (claim 25) ..................................................................... 70
`
`VI.
`
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 70
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 4
`
`

`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aventis Pharms. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...............................18
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................18
`
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Sprint Communications Co. LP, 38 F. Supp. 3d
`589 (E. D. Penn. 2014).......................................................................................................52, 55
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................52, 55
`
`Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28106, 2014
`WL 869092 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2014) .....................................................................................19
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F. 3d 1111 (Fed. Cir.
`2004) ..................................................................................................................................58, 61
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364 (2014) .........................................................19
`
`Karlin v. Surgical Dynamics, 177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................50
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) .....................................................18
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ........................................ passim
`
`On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir.
`2004) ................................................................................................................................ passim
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ....................................... passim
`
`Simpleair, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99404, 2011 WL 3880525 (E.D.
`Tex. Sept. 2, 2011) ...................................................................................................................63
`
`Trover Grp., Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33876 (E.D. Tex.
`March 19, 2015) ............................................................................................................... passim
`
`Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................ passim
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ..................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C § 282 ...................................................................................................................49, 52, 55
`
`5
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 5
`
`

`
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 8.4 and the Final Procedural Schedule (Order No. 16) set forth
`
`in this Investigation, Complainant Andrea Electronics Corporation (hereafter “Andrea” or
`
`“Complainant”) hereby submits its initial claim construction brief in support of its claim
`
`construction for the remaining disputed terms for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,363,345 (“the ’345 Patent”),
`
`6,377,637 (“the ’637 Patent”), and 6,049,607 (“the ’607 Patent”) (collectively “Asserted
`
`Patents”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Andrea’s proposed constructions of the remaining disputed claim terms are consistent
`
`with the plain language of the claims and specification of the Asserted Patents, as those terms
`
`would be properly understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art. Respondents’ and
`
`Intervenors’ proposed constructions, in many instances are drawn so narrowly that they may fail
`
`to cover the preferred embodiment described in the specification of the Asserted Patents. This is
`
`especially true of Respondents’ and Intervenors’ proposed constructions the disputed claim terms
`
`for the ’345 and ’637 Patents.
`
`With regards to the ’607 Patent, Respondents and Intervenors have identified several of
`
`the claim terms as being indefinite, but have not yet provided sufficient contentions surrounding
`
`their indefiniteness argument to which Andrea can respond. It is not Andrea’s burden to
`
`affirmatively show that its claims are definite. Further, in spite of their indefiniteness arguments,
`
`Respondents and Intervenors have proposed constructions in the alternative – which are exactly
`
`the same as those proposed by Andrea and Staff. As for the remaining disputed claim terms for
`
`the ’607 Patent, Respondents’ and Intervenors’ proposed constructions again fail to acknowledge
`
`the full breadth and scope of those terms as would be properly understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`6
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 6
`
`

`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`The technology at issue in this Investigation generally relates to the processing of audio
`
`signals to cancel or reduce undesired noise present in those signals. Audio signals are a
`
`representation of the physical sound waves that propagates through a medium (typically, air).
`
`Ex. A (Declaration of Dr. Scott Douglas (hereafter “Douglas Decl.”) at ¶ 10). These physical
`
`sound waves are translated into audio signals by a microphone. In particular, microphones
`
`typically include a membrane which vibrates when impacted by the physical sound waves.
`
`Douglas Decl. at ¶ 10. The vibrations of the membrane are translated into oscillations of
`
`electrical voltage, which when plotted over time results in a waveform, such as the following
`
`waveform illustrated below. Douglas Decl. at ¶ 10.
`
`The waveform above corresponds to a tone, and would be similar to the waveform
`
`generated by the press of a piano key. Douglas Decl. at ¶ 10 & Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 7
`
`

`
`The signals generated by a microphone are typically analog signals, meaning that they are
`
`continuous in time. Douglas Decl. at ¶ 11. In today’s age of digital computers, analog signals
`
`must first be converted into digital form in order to be processed by a computer. Douglas Decl.
`
`at ¶ 12. To do this conversion, the analog signal is sampled, i.e., measured at repeated time
`
`intervals. Douglas Decl. at ¶ 12. The result of a sampled analog signal is illustrated, for
`
`example, by the discrete sampling points on the plot below:
`
`
`
`Douglas Decl. at ¶ 12 & Fig. 2. Once the signal is digitized, it can then be analyzed and
`
`processed by a computer.
`
`In the digitally sampled signal above, it is relatively easy to understand the characteristics
`
`of the signal. Douglas Decl. at ¶ 12. For example, one can readily measure the frequency of the
`
`signal (i.e., how often the signal repeats), the amplitude of the signal (i.e. how “high” (or “low”)
`
`8
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 8
`
`

`
`the signal goes), and phase (relative starting point of the signal). See Douglas Decl. at ¶¶ 10-13.
`
`This task is more complicated for complex signals, such as the signal below:
`
`
`
`See Douglas Decl. at Fig. 4. Because of the varying nature of the signal over time, it is difficult
`
`to ascertain the characteristics of the signal by simply looking at how the signal varies in time.
`
`See Douglas Decl. at ¶¶ 16-18 & Fig. 4. Often, it is helpful to analyze a signal in the context of
`
`its frequency spectrum, or its frequency components. Douglas Decl. at ¶¶ 16-18. A filter is a
`
`processing unit that can extract the portion of a signal limited to a range of frequencies. Thus, a
`
`set of filters (filter bank) can be used to split a signal into its constituent frequency components.
`
`Douglas Decl. at ¶ 18. For example, if the signal above were filtered into its constituent
`
`frequencies by a filter bank, the output would look as follows:
`
`9
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 9
`
`

`
`
`
`Douglas Decl. at ¶ 18 & Fig. 4. As shown above, the filtered components of the signal above
`
`correspond to much simpler waveforms which can be individually analyzed and manipulated
`
`(filtered) to, for example, remove certain undesired frequency components. Douglas Decl. at ¶
`
`18 & Fig. 4. The filters in a bank may be custom designed to generate spectral components best
`
`suited to the application at hand. Douglas Decl. at ¶ 18. Alternately, they may be implemented
`
`using one of several canned spectral analysis techniques – e.g., the Discrete Fourier Transform
`
`(DFT), Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT), etc. Douglas Decl. at ¶ 18. The processed,
`
`constituent portions of the signal can then be recombined to result in a signal without the
`
`undesired frequency component. Douglas Decl. at ¶ 20.
`
`10
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 10
`
`

`
`III. THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`
`Complainant’s ’345 Patent, attached hereto as Exhibit K, teaches systems, methods, and
`
`apparatuses for reducing noise components in an audio signal. ’345 Patent at col. 1:19-21. Prior
`
`art techniques estimated the level of noise in the signal by measuring the magnitude of the signal
`
`“during non-speech time intervals” and then subtracting that estimate from the whole signal.
`
`’345 Patent at col. 1:60-64. The problem with this approach is that the thresholds used to
`
`distinguish non-speech intervals were inaccurate. ’345 Patent at col. 2:45-58. The inventions of
`
`the ’345 Patent address these shortcomings by decomposing the signal into frequency bins and
`
`then using a threshold detector to identify non-speech segments on a per-bin basis. ’345 Patent
`
`at col. 3:28-31.
`
`In the preferred embodiment of the ’345 Patent, an input audio signal is digitized and
`
`conditioned, before it is split into “frequency bins.” ’345 Patent at col. 4:65 – 5:10. This means
`
`that the signal is divided into multiple components, where each component represents the portion
`
`of the signal within a range of frequencies. Douglas Decl. at ¶ 27. In the preferred embodiment,
`
`this is accomplished using a Fast Fourier Transform (“FFT”) filter bank. Douglas Decl. at ¶ 29.
`
`While the preferred embodiment describes the use of an FFT to generate the frequency bins of
`
`the input signal, the ’345 Patent contemplates that “other transforms may be applied to the
`
`present invention to obtain the spectral noise signal.” ’345 Patent, col. 5:30-33.
`
`In the preferred embodiment of the ’345 Patent, the frequency bins are then sent through
`
`the noise processing block, wherein the magnitude of each frequency bin is determined. Douglas
`
`Decl. at ¶¶ 28-29. The magnitude represents the level of the signal in each frequency bin.
`
`Douglas Decl. at ¶ 32. The magnitude is generally a positive value, which requires that any
`
`negative numbers be converted into positive numbers through mathematical operations, such as
`
`11
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 11
`
`

`
`squaring or taking the absolute value. Douglas Decl. at ¶¶ 32-33. The magnitude is then used by
`
`the “noise estimation processor,” which applies a separate adaptive threshold for each frequency
`
`bin. ’345 Patent at col. 5:66 – 6:22. The ’345 Patent explains:
`
`The logic behind this method is that, for each syllable, the energy
`may appear at different frequency bands. At the same time, other
`frequency bands may contain noise elements. It is therefore
`possible to apply a non-sensitive threshold for the noise and yet
`locate many non-speech data points for each bin, even within a
`continuous speech case.
`
`’345 Patent at col. 6:14-19. To prevent the adaptive threshold from becoming too high or too
`
`low, the preferred embodiment of the ’345 Patent uses two values, a “current minimum value”
`
`and “future minimum value,” to set the threshold. These values are both initiated, or reset, at the
`
`beginning of a predetermined period of time and decrease if the magnitude of the signal in a
`
`frequency bin falls below the initialized value. ’345 Patent at col. 6:23-41. This process
`
`“ensures a tight and quick estimation of the noise value . . . while preventing [] too high an
`
`estimation of the noise.” ’345 Patent at col. 6:42-45.
`
`In the preferred embodiment of the ’345 Patent, the threshold is a function of the current
`
`and future minimum values. ’345 Patent at col. 6:38-45. The magnitude of each signal is
`
`continuously compared to the threshold in order to estimate the level of noise in each frequency
`
`bin. ’345 Patent at col. 6:49-53. If the magnitude of the frequency bin is less than the threshold,
`
`the noise estimate is updated using that magnitude value. ’345 Patent at col. 6:48-52. The
`
`subtraction processor uses an algorithm that subtracts the estimated noise from the frequency bin.
`
`’345 Patent at col. 6:58 – 7:33.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,377,637
`
`The ’637 Patent, attached hereto as Exhibit I, teaches methods and apparatuses for sub-
`
`band noise cancellation, meaning noise cancellation carried out on components of the signal,
`
`12
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 12
`
`

`
`where each component represents the portion of the signal that falls within a specified range of
`
`frequencies. ’637 Patent at col. 3:3-14. Sub-band noise cancellation reduces processing
`
`complexity over the prior art and provides a “simple, yet efficient mechanism, to estimate and
`
`subtract noise even in poor signal-to-noise ratio situations and in continuous fast speech cases.”
`
`’637 Patent at col. 3:4-7; 3:34-41.
`
`In the preferred embodiment of the ’637 Patent, an audio signal that includes noise is
`
`input into the system. ’637 Patent at col. 4:35-48. The signal is then passed to a band-splitter
`
`that divides the signal into time-indexed, real-valued, band-limited components. ’637 Patent at
`
`col. 4:49 – 5:7 (citing RONALD E. CROCHIERE & LAWRENCE R. RABINER MULTIRATE DIGITAL
`
`SIGNAL PROCESSING (Barbara Cassel et al. eds., 1983) & P. P. Vaidyanathan, Multirate Digital
`
`Filters, Filter Banks, Polyphase Networks, and Applications: A Tutorial, 78 Proc. IEEE 56
`
`(1990)). See also Douglas Decl. at ¶¶ 46-48.
`
`Each component is then noise processed individually. ’637 Patent at col. 3:44-45, 5:37 –
`
`7:12. First, the exponential average of the signal in each sub-band is taken to provide a stable
`
`estimate of the level, or magnitude, of the signal in each sub-band. ’637 Patent at col. 3:45-47,
`
`5:43-50. The stable estimate of the magnitude is then used by a noise estimation process, which
`
`calculates an estimate of the amount of noise in the sub-band using an adaptive threshold. ’637
`
`Patent at col. 3:48-55, 5:53- 6:39. Applying an adaptive filter to each sub-band individually
`
`makes it “possible to apply a non-sensitive threshold for the noise and yet locate many non-
`
`speech data points for each bin, even within a continuous speech case.” ’637 Patent at col. 5:66
`
`– 6:2. In the preferred embodiment, the threshold is adaptively determined using two numbers,
`
`which prevents the threshold from becoming too high. ’637 Patent at col. 6:6-27. If the level of
`
`the signal in a sub-band is below the threshold, the noise estimate is updated using that signal
`
`13
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 13
`
`

`
`sub-band level. ’637 Patent at col. 6:31-35. A subtraction processor then reduces the noise in
`
`the sub-band, for example, via filter multiplication. ’637 Patent at col. 6:40 – 7:12. The audio
`
`signal is then reconstructed from the sub-bands. ’637 Patent at col. 7:13-50.
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607
`
`The ’607 Patent, attached hereto as Exhibit J, teaches interference canceling methods and
`
`apparatuses for echo cancelling. ’607 Patent at col. 1:15-19. Echoes can occur, for example,
`
`during teleconferencing. ’607 Patent at col. 1:22-31. A teleconferencing system typically
`
`consists of a near-end, where one party to the teleconference is located, and a far end, where the
`
`other party to the teleconference is located. ’607 Patent at col. 1:33-39. The near-end includes a
`
`microphone for picking up speech by the party at the near-end to be transmitted to the far-end
`
`and a speaker for reproducing the speech signals generated from the far-end and transmitted to
`
`the near-end. Id. Similarly, the far-end includes a microphone for picking up speech by the
`
`party at the far end to be transmitted to the near-end and a speaker for reproducing the speech
`
`signals generated from the near-end and transmitted to the far-end. Id. One problem with these
`
`teleconferencing systems is that the far-end speech signals reproduced by the speaker at the near-
`
`end are picked up by the microphone at the near-end and transmitted back to and reproduced by
`
`the speaker at the far-end. ’607 Patent at col. 1:39-47. As a result, the party at the far-end will
`
`hear an echo of his or her own voice. Id. This echo is undesirable and interferes with the
`
`intelligibility of the teleconference communication. Id.
`
`Echo cancelers use the signal broadcast from the far-end to estimate the echo signal
`
`present in the signal generated from the microphone at the near-end. ’607 Patent at col. 1:62 –
`
`2:13. The estimate is generated by applying a filter to the signal transmitted from the far end.
`
`’607 Patent at col. 2:3-25. The filter estimates how the far-end signal is transformed when is
`
`reproduced by the near-end speaker and subsequently picked up by the near-end microphone. Id.
`
`14
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 14
`
`

`
`Because the necessary parameters of the filter cannot be known a priori, an adaptive filter is
`
`used to allow the filter to adapt to the conditions of the near-end environment in real-time. ’607
`
`Patent at col. 2:10-13.
`
`The ’607 Patent provides a more efficient echo canceling system by splitting both the
`
`signal input from the near end input and the far-end signal into a number of frequency sub-bands.
`
`’607 Patent at col. 5:36-62. The ’607 Patent contemplates a near end input comprised of
`
`multiple sensors, which allow for the creation of a “beam” that can be steered toward the desired
`
`signal. Douglas Decl. at ¶¶ 68-69; see also ’607 Patent at col. 5:14-34. In addition to picking up
`
`the desired signal, the sensor array will pick up what is played by speaker at the near end
`
`computer – i.e., the far end signal as played by the speakers – thereby generating an echo. The
`
`combination of the desired signal and the echo is split into frequency-limited components. ’607
`
`Patent at col. 5:35-62 & col. 6:63 – 7:29. Likewise, the far end signal is split into frequency-
`
`limited components. ’607 Patent at col. 6:63-67 & col. 6:63 – 7:29.
`
`The beam split near-end and far-end signals are then processed by an adaptive filter to
`
`remove the interference signal present in the signal picked up by the microphone array. ’637
`
`Patent at col. 7:30 – 8:67. The system estimates how the far-end signal is transformed when it is
`
`broadcast by the loudspeaker into the air, potentially-bouncing off any the walls or other objects,
`
`and subsequently is received by the microphone array. ’607 Patent at col. 7:37-44. The results
`
`are then summed or accumulated to generate a filtered signal that, in this case, represents an
`
`estimate of the echo in each sub-band of the near-end signal. Douglas Decl. at ¶¶ 73-76. The
`
`estimate of the echo is then subtracted from the near end signal to obtain an echo free signal in
`
`each sub-band. ’607 Patent at col. 7:34-36. Once each of the sub-bands is adaptively filtered to
`
`remove the undesired echo signal, the signals are recombined. ’607 Patent at col. 9:1-3.
`
`15
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 15
`
`

`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Standards for Claim Construction
`
`Claim construction begins with the words of the claim itself, which generally receive
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention in the context of the specification and prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). To ascertain the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the claims, courts consider the intrinsic record, including the claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Id. at 1314. Claim terms “can be defined only in a
`
`way that comports with the instrument as a whole[]” and must be read “in the context of the
`
`entire patent[.]” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 389 (1996). It is the
`
`claims that delimit a patentee’s right to exclude, and therefore it is not proper to import
`
`limitations from the specification into the claims. Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436
`
`F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “A patentee need not describe in the specification every
`
`conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick
`
`Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). On
`
`the other hand, “a claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of
`
`the claim is rarely, if ever, correct.” On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH,
`
`386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`In addition to the specification and claims, the court may also consider the prosecution
`
`history, which, “[l]ike the specification, . . . provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor
`
`understood the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (citation omitted). In addition, “[a] court can
`
`look to the prosecution history of related patents for guidance in claim construction[.]” Aventis
`
`Pharms. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
`
`Courts may also consider extrinsic evidence, e.g., inventor testimony, dictionaries, and
`
`16
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 16
`
`

`
`treatises, when intrinsic record alone is insufficient to support proper constructions. Phillips, at
`
`1317-18. Expert testimony is often helpful to illuminate complex technical issues and provide a
`
`foundation for the viewpoint of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Id. at 1318 (“We have
`
`also held that extrinsic evidence in the form of expert testimony can be useful to a court for a
`
`variety of purposes, such as to provide background on the technology at issue, to explain how an
`
`invention works, to ensure that the court’s understanding of the technical aspects of the patent is
`
`consistent with that of a person of skill in the art, or to establish that a particular term in the
`
`patent or the prior art has a particular meaning in the pertinent field.”). As the Federal Circuit
`
`explained, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with
`
`the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316
`
`(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`B.
`
`Standards for Indefiniteness
`
`A patent must “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as [the] invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2
`
`(2006). A claim fails to satisfy this statutory requirement and is thus invalid for indefiniteness
`
`only if its language, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, “fail[s] to
`
`inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). This standard allows for
`
`some amount of uncertainty, as absolute precision in claim drafting is unattainable. Id. at 2128-
`
`29. Instead, indefiniteness problems arise where the claim language “might mean several
`
`different things and ‘no informed and confident choice is available among the contending
`
`definitions’.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (2014) (citing Nautilus,
`
`134 S. Ct. at 2130 & n. 8 (quoting Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2014
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28106, 2014 WL 869092, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2014))). Claim drafting
`
`17
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1019, p. 17
`
`

`
`flaws, such as lack of antecedent basis, do not automatically render claims indefinite. See, e.g.,
`
`Trover Grp., Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33876 at *28 (E.D. Tex.
`
`March 19, 2015) (citing Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2124). A claim may be reasonably clear to a
`
`person of skill in the art even in the presence of drafting flaws. Id.
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Andrea proposes that the level of ordinary skill in the art is a person having (1) an
`
`undergraduate degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a
`
`similar degree, with introductory course work in digital signal processing and approximately
`
`three years of experience in developing and implementing digital signal processing algorithms
`
`and systems or (2) a master’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, or similar degree with a focus on digital signal processing and approximately one
`
`year of experience in developing and implementing digital processing algorithms and systems.
`
`This level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the subject matter in textbooks such
`
`as Digital Signal Processing by Alan A. Oppenheim and Ronald W. Shafer. See ALAN A.
`
`OPPENHEIM & RONALD W. SCHAFER, DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSING (Marcia Horton et al. eds.,
`
`2nd ed. 1999) (excerpt produced at Andrea_ITC_949_00289961-290010). An earlier version of
`
`Oppenheim and Shafer is cited by the ’345 Patent at col. 5:45-49 and gives an example of
`
`undergraduate coursework that would be completed by students pursuing a degree in compu