By: William D. Belanger
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`belangerw@pepperlaw.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00626
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`___________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS REGARDING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S REPLY DECLARANT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`belangerw@pepperlaw.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00626
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`___________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS REGARDING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S REPLY DECLARANT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00626
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`PATENT OWNER’S TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Previously Filed
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`New
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Reserved
`Declaration of Scott Douglas, Ph.D.
`Notice of Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 from
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1026
`Reserved
`Transcript from First Deposition of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald dated
`October 12, 2017
`Affidavit of Bradley T. Lennie, Esq.
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2007
`
`Exhibit Description
`Transcript from Second Deposition of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald dated
`March 13, 2018
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00626
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS REGARDING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S REPLY DECLARANT
`
`As authorized by the Board’s Scheduling Order dated July 24, 2017 (Paper
`
`8), Andrea Electronics Corporation (“Patent Owner”) respectfully submits this
`
`Observations on Cross-Examination of Petitioner’s Reply Declarant, Bertrand
`
`Hochwald, Ph.D., who was deposed on March 13, 2018. In these observations,
`
`reference is made by page and line number to the transcript of such deposition,
`
`filed as Exhibit 2007 in this matter.
`
`1. Observation #1
`
`In Exhibit 2007, page 17, lines 8-11, Dr. Hochwald testified that in the prior
`
`art reference, Rainer Martin, “An Efficient Algorithm to Estimate the
`
`Instantaneous SNR of Speech Signals,” Proc. Eurospeech, pp. 1093-96, 1993, (Ex.
`
`1006, “Martin”), the value of W in Martin’s algorithm corresponds to the number
`
`of W windows, or sub-windows.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hochwald’s previous testimony that it is his
`
`opinion that “Martin’s Sub-Windows Are an Optional Feature” of Martin’s
`
`algorithm. See Ex. 1023 at ¶¶4-13; see also Pet. Reply at 5-8.
`
`2. Observation #2
`
`In Exhibit 2007, page 20, line 23 - page 21, line 23 and page 22, lines 7-24,
`
`Dr. Hochwald testified that Martin’s algorithm decides whether signal samples
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00626
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`from a sub-window are of “monotonically increasing power” through a
`
`determination whether the values inside the “min_vec” vector are increasing.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hochwald’s previous testimony that it is his
`
`opinion that “Martin’s Sub-Windows Are an Optional Feature” of Martin’s
`
`algorithm. See Ex. 1023 at ¶¶4-13; see also Pet. Reply at 5-8.
`
`3. Observation #3
`
`In Exhibit 2007, page 23, line 24 - page 24, line 8 and page 24, line 18 -
`
`page 25, line 5, Dr. Hochwald testified that when W is set equal to 1 in Martin’s
`
`algorithm, there is only one min_vec value in the min_vec vector and that in such a
`
`case the algorithm cannot determine whether the min_vec values are
`
`monotonically increasing.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hochwald’s previous testimony that it is his
`
`opinion that “Martin’s Sub-Windows Are an Optional Feature” of Martin’s
`
`algorithm. See Ex. 1023 at ¶¶4-13; see also Pet. Reply at 5-8.
`
`4. Observation #4
`
`In Exhibit 2007, page 25, line 16 - page 26, line 1 and page 32, lines 5-12,
`
`Dr. Hochwald testified that when a person sets W equal to 1 in Martin’s algorithm
`
`they concluded that a determination of whether the values inside the “min_vec”
`
`vector are increasing or not is not important and not material.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00626
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hochwald’s previous testimony that it is his
`
`opinion that “Martin’s Sub-Windows Are an Optional Feature” of Martin’s
`
`algorithm. See Ex. 1023 at ¶¶4-13; see also Pet. Reply at 5-8.
`
`5. Observation #5
`
`In Exhibit 2007, page 44, line 16 - page 45, line 2, Dr. Hochwald testified
`
`that the Martin reference discloses that if the minimum power of the last W
`
`windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing, the algorithm decides
`
`on rapid noise power variation.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hochwald’s previous testimony that it is his
`
`opinion that “Martin’s Sub-Windows Are an Optional Feature” of Martin’s
`
`algorithm. See Ex. 1023 at ¶¶4-13; see also Pet. Reply at 5-8.
`
`6. Observation #6
`
`In Exhibit 2007, page 45, lines 3-7, Dr. Hochwald testified that the Martin
`
`reference’s disclosure of the use of “W windows,” with “windows” plural, is
`
`consistent with the step of his algorithm where a determination is made whether or
`
`not the signal power is monotonically increasing within a given window W.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hochwald’s previous testimony that it is his
`
`opinion that “Martin’s Sub-Windows Are an Optional Feature” of Martin’s
`
`algorithm. See Ex. 1023 at ¶¶4-13; see also Pet. Reply at 5-8.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00626
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`
`7. Observation #7
`
`In Exhibit 2007, page 46, line 4 - page 47, line 6, Dr. Hochwald testified that
`
`the purpose of the monotonically increasing decision block in the Martin reference
`
`is to make the distinction between slowly varying noise power and rapidly varying
`
`noise power.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hochwald’s previous testimony that it is his
`
`opinion that “Martin’s Sub-Windows Are an Optional Feature” of Martin’s
`
`algorithm (see Ex. 1023 at ¶¶4-13) and that it is his opinion that “[o]ne in the art
`
`would understand that Martin’s algorithm functions equally well for any positive
`
`integer W,” i.e., that the algorithm functions equally well whether or not more than
`
`one sub-window is used (see Ex. 1023 at ¶5). See also Pet. Reply at 5-8.
`
`8. Observation #8
`
`In Exhibit 2007, page 48, lines 3-12, Dr. Hochwald testified in response to a
`
`question that if W is set equal to 1, Martin’s algorithm cannot distinguish between
`
`the two cases where the signal is slowly varying noise power and rapidly varying
`
`noise power, and that by setting W equal to 1, the user has chosen that such a
`
`distinction is not material.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hochwald’s previous testimony that it is his
`
`opinion that “Martin’s Sub-Windows Are an Optional Feature” of Martin’s
`
`algorithm (see Ex. 1023 at ¶¶4-13) and that it is his opinion that “[o]ne in the art
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00626
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`would understand that Martin’s algorithm functions equally well for any positive
`
`integer W,” i.e., that the algorithm functions equally well whether or not more than
`
`one sub-window is used (see Ex. 1023 at ¶5). See also Pet. Reply at 5-8.
`
`9. Observation #9
`
`In Exhibit 2007, page 52, lines 12-15, Dr. Hochwald testified that Martin
`
`states that his algorithm’s use of sub-windows improves the noise tracking
`
`capability of the algorithm for a rapid noise power increase.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hochwald’s previous testimony that it is his
`
`opinion that “Martin’s Sub-Windows Are an Optional Feature” of Martin’s
`
`algorithm (see Ex. 1023 at ¶¶4-13) and that it is his opinion that “[o]ne in the art
`
`would understand that Martin’s algorithm functions equally well for any positive
`
`integer W,” i.e., that the algorithm functions equally well whether or not more than
`
`one sub-window is used (see Ex. 1023 at ¶5). See also Pet. Reply at 5-8.
`
`10. Observation #10
`
`In Exhibit 2007, page 62, lines 14 - page 63, line 5, Dr. Hochwald testified
`
`that Martin’s use of sub-windows provides an improved noise tracking capability
`
`for rapid noise power increase and that Martin discloses that using sub-windows
`
`provides an improvement, whereas not using sub-windows does not provide that
`
`improvement.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00626
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hochwald’s previous testimony that it is his
`
`opinion that “Martin’s Sub-Windows Are an Optional Feature” of Martin’s
`
`algorithm (see Ex. 1023 at ¶¶4-13) and that it is his opinion that “[o]ne in the art
`
`would understand that Martin’s algorithm functions equally well for any positive
`
`integer W” i.e., that the algorithm functions equally well whether or not more than
`
`one sub-window is used (see Ex. 1023 at ¶5). See also Pet. Reply at 5-8.
`
`11. Observation #11
`
`In Exhibit 2007, page 64, lines 8 – page 65, line 7, Dr. Hochwald testified
`
`that Martin’s use of sub-windows reduces the delay in Martin’s algorithm and that
`
`Martin suggests that less delay is an advantage in his algorithm.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hochwald’s previous testimony that it is his
`
`opinion that “Martin’s Sub-Windows Are an Optional Feature” of Martin’s
`
`algorithm (see Ex. 1023 at ¶¶4-13) and that it is his opinion that “[o]ne in the art
`
`would understand that Martin’s algorithm functions equally well for any positive
`
`integer W” i.e., that the algorithm functions equally well whether or not more than
`
`one sub-window is used (see Ex. 1023 at ¶5). See also Pet. Reply at 5-8.
`
`12. Observation #12
`
`In Exhibit 2007, page 70, lines 16-18, Dr. Hochwald testified that the Martin
`
`1994 prior art reference, Rainer Martin, “Spectral Subtraction Based on Minimum
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00626
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`Statistics,” Proc. EUSIPCO-94, pp. 1182-85 (1994) (Ex. 1031, “Martin 1994”),
`
`uses sub-windows.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hochwald’s previous testimony that it is his
`
`opinion the Martin 1994 reference supports his view that the monotonically
`
`increasing block of Martin 1993 is an optional feature of the Martin 1993
`
`algorithm. See Ex. 1023 at ¶13. See also Pet. Reply at 8.
`
`13. Observation #13
`
`In Exhibit 2007, page 71, lines 9-21, Dr. Hochwald testified that the Martin
`
`1994 prior art reference does state or explain why the Martin 1994 paper did not
`
`include a monotonically increasing block like the one in Martin 1993.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hochwald’s previous testimony that it is his
`
`opinion the Martin 1994 reference supports his view that the monotonically
`
`increasing block of Martin 1993 is an optional feature of the Martin 1993
`
`algorithm. See Ex. 1023 at ¶13. See also Pet. Reply at 8.
`
`Dated:
`
` March 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By: /William D. Belanger/
`William D. Belanger, Reg. No. 40,509
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00626
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that on March 19, 2018, a true and accurate copy of this paper,
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY DECLARANT was served on the Petitioner at the following
`email address, pursuant to Petitioner’s consent to e-mail service:
`
`
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`
`
`
` March 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By: /William D. Belanger/
`William D. Belanger, Reg. No. 40,509
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`8
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
