`
`
`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
`____________________
`
`IPR2017-00626
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`Petitioner’s Remand Brief Regarding Claim 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The Board authorized briefing on the arguments Apple presented in the
`
`petition with respect to how Martin meets claim 9’s requirement that “said future
`
`minimum value is set to a current magnitude value periodically.” Paper 45. In the
`
`Petition, Apple explained that Martin sets its “future minimum” (PMmin) equal to the
`
`“current magnitude” (𝑃𝑃�x(i)) whenever the current magnitude is less than the future
`
`minimum, Pet., 46, and that this operation will occur at the beginning of every sub-
`
`window of M samples, Pet., 41, 43-44. Because each such sub-window of M
`
`samples constitutes the same duration of time, this operation occurs at a fixed time
`
`interval, which satisfies the Federal Circuit’s construction of “periodically.”
`
`II. Argument
`A. Overview Martin
`In the Petition, Apple explained how Martin’s algorithm worked and how its
`
`variables mapped to the claims. Among other things, Apple explained that “Martin
`
`teaches a noise floor estimation process that uses a ‘current minimum’ (Pn(i)) and a
`
`‘future minimum’ (PMmin) to track the minimum signal power (𝑃𝑃�x(i)) during a
`
`predetermined period.” Pet., 38. Apple also explained that, “[d]uring each period
`
`of M samples,” the variable PMmin stores the minimum value of the signal, and “[a]t
`
`the end of the period…, the minimum value is reset and the process repeats.” Pet.,
`
`39 (emphasis added). Apple also explained how the value is reset: “[A]t the end of
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`the period…, PMmin is reset to PMax (value not shown), and at the beginning of the
`
`Pet., 41 (emphasis added). Thus, at the start of each period of M samples (e.g.,
`
`1250 samples), Martin sets PMmin (“future minimum”) to the first “current
`
`next period, PMmin is set to the first magnitude value 𝑷𝑷�x(i). [Ex. 1003], ¶¶138-40.”
`magnitude” value 𝑃𝑃�x(i). Ex. 1006, 1094; Ex. 1003, ¶140.
`
`B. Martin Sets Its “Future Minimum” to a “Current Magnitude” at
`the Start of Every Period of M Samples
`In the Petition, Apple identified the step in Martin’s algorithm that met claim
`
`9 as follows: “As explained with respect to claim 5 (§ V.C.3.a)(2)), the ‘future
`
`minimum’ PMmin is set to the value of the ‘current magnitude’ 𝑃𝑃�x(i) whenever
`𝑃𝑃�x(i)<PMmin.” Pet., 46. Apple thus explicitly relied on its explanation why Martin
`𝑃𝑃�x(i) (circled in red in embedded figure).
`
`met claim 5, in which Apple identified the portion of Martin’s algorithm that
`
`compares these values and sets PMmin to
`
`Pet., 43-44. As Apple explained, that
`
`operation allows the Martin algorithm to
`
`track the minimum value of the signal during a sub-window of “a predetermined
`
`number of samples M (‘a predetermined period of time’)” and to set the “future
`
`minimum” PMmin to the value of the “current magnitude” 𝑃𝑃�x(i) at the same time
`
`interval (i.e., the beginning of every period of M samples). Pet., 41, 43.
`
`As Apple explained for claim 5, “Whenever M samples have been read…
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`we store the minimum power of the last M samples and reset PMmin.” Pet., 43
`
`(emphasis added) (quoting Ex. 1006, 1094). PMmin is reset by setting it equal to
`
`PMax, which is the maximum possible value PMmin can have, and then “at the
`
`beginning of the next period, PMmin is set to the first magnitude value 𝑃𝑃�x(i).” Pet.,
`
`41; Ex. 1003, ¶¶138-140. As Dr. Hochwald explained, “[b]y setting PMmin= Pmax it
`
`follows immediately that during the next
`
`cycle of the loop in red in Figure 2 that
`
`PMmin = 𝑃𝑃�x(i).” Ex. 1003, ¶140 (emphasis
`
`added). This step is circled in red and is
`
`the same step Apple relied on as meeting
`
`claim 9. The ’345 patent uses the same operation—initiating the future minimum
`
`with the current magnitude every five seconds. Ex. 1001, Fig. 3 (304), Fig. 7
`
`(722), 6:24-28 (“A future minimum value is initiated every 5 seconds at 304 with
`
`the value of the current magnitude (Y(n)) and replaced with a smaller minimal
`
`value over the next 5 seconds”), 8:36-40. Martin’s operation occurs at the start of
`
`every sub-window of M samples, and thus occurs “periodically,” which was
`
`construed to mean “at regular intervals of time.”
`
`III. Conclusion
`Apple respectfully submits that Martin teaches what claim 9 specifies, and
`
`that the Board should cancel that claim.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 2, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Jeffrey P. Kushan/
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Registration No. 43,401
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`jkushan@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8914
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of June, 2020, copies of this Petitioner’s
`
`Responsive Remand Brief, and Exhibits have been served in its entirety by email
`
`on the following counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`
`William D. Belanger, belangerw@pepperlaw.com
`Frank D. Liu, liuf@pepperlaw.com
`Andrew P. Zappia, zappiaa@pepperlaw.com
`BN_IPR-Andrea@pepperlaw.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Jeffrey P. Kushan/
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Reg. No. 43,401
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`June 2, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
