·1· · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · · · · ----------------------------
`
`·3· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·4· · · · · · · ----------------------------
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·APPLE INC.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioner
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·v.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · Patent owner
`
`10· · · · · · · -----------------------------
`
`11· · · · · · · · ·Case No. IPR2017-00626
`
`12· · · · · · · · ·U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`
`13· · · · · · · · ·Case No. IPR2017-00627
`
`14· · · · · · · · · U.S. Patent 5,550,924
`
`15
`
`16· · · · DEPOSITION OF BERTRAND M. HOCHWALD, Ph.D.
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · Washington, D.C.
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · October 12, 2017
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · · 9:38 a.m.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22· Job No. BO-143617
`
`23· Pages 1 - 193
`
`24· Reported by:· Michele E. Eddy, RPR, CRR, CLR
`
`Patent Owner
`Andrea Electronics Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2005
`IPR2017-00626
`
`IPR Page 1 of 221
`
`
`
`·2· · · · · · · ----------------------------
`
`·3· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·4· · · · · · · ----------------------------
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·APPLE INC.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioner
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·v.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · Patent owner
`
`10· · · · · · · -----------------------------
`
`11· · · · · · · · ·Case No. IPR2017-00626
`
`12· · · · · · · · ·U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`
`13· · · · · · · · ·Case No. IPR2017-00627
`
`14· · · · · · · · · U.S. Patent 5,550,924
`
`15
`
`16· · · · DEPOSITION OF BERTRAND M. HOCHWALD, Ph.D.
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · Washington, D.C.
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · October 12, 2017
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · · 9:38 a.m.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22· Job No. BO-143617
`
`23· Pages 1 - 193
`
`24· Reported by:· Michele E. Eddy, RPR, CRR, CLR
`
`Patent Owner
`Andrea Electronics Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2005
`IPR2017-00626
`
`IPR Page 1 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · Deposition of BERTRAND M. HOCHWALD, Ph.D.,
`
`·2· held at the offices of:
`
`·3· · · · · · SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`· · · · · · · 1501 K Street, Northwest
`·4· · · · · · Washington, D.C.· 20005
`
`·5· · · · · · (202) 736-8000
`
`·6
`
`·7· · · · · · Pursuant to Notice, before Michele E.
`
`·8· Eddy, Registered Professional Reporter, Certified
`
`·9· Realtime Reporter, and Notary public in and for
`
`10· the District of Columbia.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`IPR Page 2 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`·2
`
`·3· ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`·4· · · · · · THOMAS A. BROUGHAN, III, ESQUIRE
`
`·5· · · · · · Sidley Austin LLP
`
`·6· · · · · · 1501 K Street, Northwest
`
`·7· · · · · · Washington, D.C.· 20005
`
`·8· · · · · · Telephone:· (202) 736-8000
`
`·9· · · · · · tbroughan@sidley.com
`
`10· · · · · · - AND -
`
`11· · · · · · STEVEN S. BAIK, ESQUIRE
`
`12· · · · · · Sidley Austin LLP
`
`13· · · · · · Building One, Suite 100
`
`14· · · · · · 1001 Page Mill Road
`
`15· · · · · · Palo Alto, California· 94304
`
`16· · · · · · Telephone:· (650) 565-7000
`
`17· · · · · · sbaik@sidley.com
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`IPR Page 3 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· ATTENDANCE, Continued
`
`·2
`
`·3· ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`·4· · · · · · BRADLEY T. LENNIE, ESQUIRE
`
`·5· · · · · · SEAN T. GLOTH, ESQUIRE, LLP
`
`·6· · · · · · Pepper Hamilton LLP
`
`·7· · · · · · 600 Fourteenth Street, Northwest
`
`·8· · · · · · Washington, D.C.· 20005
`
`·9· · · · · · Telephone:· (202) 220-1200
`
`10· · · · · · lennieb@pepperlaw.com
`
`11· · · · · · gloths@pepperlaw.com
`
`12· · · · · · - AND -
`
`13· · · · · · STEVEN R. PEDERSEN, ESQUIRE
`
`14· · · · · · The Pedersen Firm
`
`15· · · · · · 13 West River Road, Suite D
`
`16· · · · · · Rumson, New Jersey· 07760
`
`17· · · · · · Telephone:· (312) 342-8600
`
`18· · · · · · Steve@Pedersenfirm.com
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`IPR Page 4 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION INDEX
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·3· EXAMINATION BY MR. LENNIE· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7
`
`·4· EXAMINATION BY MR. BROUGHAN· · · · · · · · · · · · 186
`
`·5
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · ·E X H I B I T S
`
`10· · · · · · · (Attached to the Transcript)
`
`11· DEPOSITION EXHIBIT· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`12· Exhibit 1· Petition for Inter Partes Review· · · · ·11
`
`13· · · · · · ·of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`
`14· Exhibit 2· Figure 2:· Flowchart of the SNR· · · · · 30
`
`15· · · · · · ·estimation algorithm
`
`16· Exhibit 3· Petition for Inter Partes Review· · · · 142
`
`17· · · · · · ·of U.S. Patent No. 5,550,924
`
`18
`
`19· · · · · · PREVIOUSLY MARKED AND REFERRED TO
`
`20· PATENT OWNER· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`21· Exhibit 1001· U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345· · · · · · · 8
`
`22· Exhibit 1003· Declaration of Bertrand Hochwald· · · 12
`
`23· · · · · · · · Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`
`24
`
`IPR Page 5 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·EXHIBIT INDEX CONTINUED
`
`·2
`
`·3· PATENT OWNER· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·4· Exhibit 1004· Declaration of Bertrand Hochwald· · ·141
`
`·5· · · · · · · · Regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,550,924
`
`·6· Exhibit 1005· Noise Estimation Techniques for· · · ·15
`
`·7· · · · · · · · Robust Speech Recognition by H.G.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · Hirsch and C. Ehrlicher
`
`·9· Exhibit 1006· Abstract by Rainer Martin titled· · · 15
`
`10· · · · · · · · "An Efficient Algorithm to
`
`11· · · · · · · · Estimate the Instantaneous SNR
`
`12· · · · · · · · of Speech Signals"
`
`13· Exhibit 1010· U.S. Patent No. 5,550,924· · · · · · 142
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`IPR Page 6 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · Washington, D.C.
`
`·3· · · · · · · ·October 12, 2017, 9:38 A.M.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - -
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - -
`
`·6· · · · · · · BERTRAND M. HOCHWALD, Ph.D.,
`
`·7· having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
`·8· · · ·EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE PATENT OWNER
`
`·9· BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`10· · · ·Q· · Good morning, Dr. Hochwald.
`
`11· · · ·A· · Good morning.
`
`12· · · ·Q· · Please state your full name for the
`
`13· record.
`
`14· · · ·A· · Bertrand Martin Hochwald.
`
`15· · · ·Q· · And where are you currently employed?
`
`16· · · ·A· · At the University of Notre Dame.
`
`17· · · ·Q· · And what is your position there?
`
`18· · · ·A· · I'm on the faculty there at the
`
`19· department of electrical engineering.
`
`20· · · ·Q· · Could you explain how you first got
`
`21· involved with this case.
`
`22· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· I will caution the
`
`23· witness not to reveal the substance of
`
`24· communications with counsel.· Subject to that, you
`
`IPR Page 7 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· may answer.
`
`·2· · · ·A· · I'm not sure if I recall the exact
`
`·3· details of that.· It would have been sometime last
`
`·4· year, receiving a call from a representative of
`
`·5· Sidley or -- I don't remember.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· · And did you perform a search for prior
`
`·7· art related to the '345 patent?
`
`·8· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· Again, I'll object to the
`
`·9· extent that it calls for privileged or work
`
`10· product protected information.· I'll caution the
`
`11· witness not to reveal the substance of
`
`12· communications with counsel.· Subject to that, you
`
`13· may answer.
`
`14· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`15· · · ·Q· · You did.· Okay.
`
`16· · · · · · MR. LENNIE:· Let's go ahead and mark the
`
`17· '345 patent first.· So we're just going to use the
`
`18· exhibit numbers from the IPR proceeding.· So this
`
`19· is going to be Exhibit 1001.
`
`20· · · · · · (Exhibit 1001 was previously marked and
`
`21· referred to.)
`
`22· · · · · · MR. LENNIE:· So we have here Exhibit
`
`23· 1001 from the 626 petition.· So when I'm referring
`
`24· to the 626 petition, that's the IPR proceeding
`
`IPR Page 8 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· with the last three digits 626.
`
`·2· BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`·3· · · ·Q· · We've marked the '345 patent.· You're
`
`·4· familiar with the '345 patent.· Correct?
`
`·5· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· · And you said that you conducted a prior
`
`·7· art search regarding the '345 patent.· Is that
`
`·8· correct?
`
`·9· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`10· · · ·Q· · Did you do that personally, or did
`
`11· someone else do it?
`
`12· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· Again, I'll caution the
`
`13· witness not to reveal the substance of
`
`14· communications with counsel.
`
`15· · · ·A· · It would have been personally.
`
`16· · · ·Q· · Personally?
`
`17· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`18· · · ·Q· · How did you go about doing that search?
`
`19· · · ·A· · I guess the usual way, library searches,
`
`20· Internet searches, database, patent database
`
`21· searches.
`
`22· · · ·Q· · And in connection with that prior
`
`23· search, did you identify the references that you
`
`24· relied on in the 626 petition?
`
`IPR Page 9 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· I'll caution the witness
`
`·2· again not to reveal the substance -- not to reveal
`
`·3· the substance of communications with counsel.
`
`·4· Subject to that, you may answer.
`
`·5· · · ·A· · I don't recall what I recovered exactly
`
`·6· or what I found myself.
`
`·7· · · ·Q· · And did you first review the '345 patent
`
`·8· prior to conducting that search?
`
`·9· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`10· · · ·Q· · So did you have the '345 patent claims
`
`11· in mind when you were preparing that search?
`
`12· · · ·A· · I guess the whole patent claims and
`
`13· specification.
`
`14· · · ·Q· · And are you familiar with
`
`15· Dr. Kyriakakis?
`
`16· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· I'll caution the witness
`
`17· not to reveal the substance of communications with
`
`18· counsel.· Subject to that, you may answer.
`
`19· · · ·A· · I don't know him personally.
`
`20· · · ·Q· · Have you ever met Dr. Kyriakakis?
`
`21· · · ·A· · Not that I recall.
`
`22· · · ·Q· · Have you ever spoken on the phone with
`
`23· Dr. Kyriakakis?
`
`24· · · ·A· · No.
`
`IPR Page 10 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·Q· · Let's go ahead and mark the petition and
`
`·2· your declaration.
`
`·3· · · · · · Let's mark this as Hochwald Exhibit 1.
`
`·4· · · · · · (Exhibit 1 was marked for identification
`
`·5· and attached to the deposition transcript.)
`
`·6· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· At some point later --
`
`·7· well, never mind.
`
`·8· · · · · · So just with the exhibit numbering, I
`
`·9· didn't know if you were going to file this as an
`
`10· exhibit.· But I assume you're not since it's
`
`11· already in the record.
`
`12· BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`13· · · ·Q· · Sir, we've marked as Exhibit 1 a copy of
`
`14· Apple's petition on the '345 patent that was given
`
`15· the number IPR2017-626.· Are you familiar with
`
`16· this document?
`
`17· · · ·A· · Petition, no, I don't think so.· No.
`
`18· · · ·Q· · You haven't reviewed a copy of the
`
`19· petition that we marked as Exhibit 1?
`
`20· · · ·A· · Sorry, is this -- is this my
`
`21· declaration?
`
`22· · · ·Q· · This is a copy of the petition.
`
`23· · · ·A· · No, I don't -- I don't recall the
`
`24· petition.
`
`IPR Page 11 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · (Exhibit 1003 was previously marked and
`
`·2· referred to.)
`
`·3· · · · · · MR. LENNIE:· I'll hand the witness a
`
`·4· copy of Exhibit 1003, which is a copy of
`
`·5· Dr. Hochwald's declaration submitted with the 626
`
`·6· petition.
`
`·7· BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`·8· · · ·Q· · Are you familiar with what we've marked
`
`·9· as Exhibit 1003?
`
`10· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`11· · · ·Q· · In connection with preparing -- well,
`
`12· let me back up.
`
`13· · · · · · Could you explain at a high level how
`
`14· you prepared this declaration.
`
`15· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· I'll object to the extent
`
`16· it calls for privileged or work product protected
`
`17· information.· I'll caution you not to reveal the
`
`18· substance of communications with counsel.· Subject
`
`19· to that, you may answer.
`
`20· · · ·A· · In what way?· Looking up prior art, what
`
`21· you're asking about before?
`
`22· · · ·Q· · Yes.· Let's start at the early stages.
`
`23· So the declaration identifies various references
`
`24· that you assert render the claims of the '345
`
`IPR Page 12 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· patent invalid.· Is that correct?
`
`·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·3· · · ·Q· · And how did you decide to identify the
`
`·4· references that are relied upon in your
`
`·5· declaration?
`
`·6· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· Again, I'll caution the
`
`·7· witness not to reveal the substance of
`
`·8· communications with counsel.· Subject to that, you
`
`·9· may answer.
`
`10· · · ·A· · I'm not sure I know exactly how to
`
`11· answer that.· It's prior art that was found either
`
`12· by me or with the assistance of counsel.
`
`13· · · ·Q· · You said that you had prepared or
`
`14· conducted a prior art search in connection with
`
`15· your work in preparing this declaration.· Correct?
`
`16· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`17· · · ·Q· · And did you identify additional prior
`
`18· art that's not discussed and relied upon in your
`
`19· declaration?
`
`20· · · ·A· · Possibly, but I included in the
`
`21· declaration what was needed to support the
`
`22· argument.
`
`23· · · ·Q· · And what was the process to determine
`
`24· which particular references and which particular
`
`IPR Page 13 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· combinations you would rely on in forming your
`
`·2· opinions regarding the '345 patent claims?
`
`·3· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· I'll object to the extent
`
`·4· it calls for privileged or work product protected
`
`·5· information.· I'll caution the witness not to
`
`·6· reveal the substance of communications with
`
`·7· counsel.· Subject to that, you may answer.
`
`·8· · · ·A· · Sorry, I lost the thread of the
`
`·9· question.
`
`10· · · ·Q· · How did you decide which prior art
`
`11· references to rely on in connection with the
`
`12· opinions in your declaration that we marked as
`
`13· Exhibit 1003?
`
`14· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· Same objections, same
`
`15· caution.
`
`16· · · ·A· · We, in reviewing the patent and its
`
`17· claims, looked at what material we thought was --
`
`18· or that I thought was going to be most relevant
`
`19· for anticipating the patent.
`
`20· · · ·Q· · So two of the prior art references that
`
`21· you rely on in your declaration are the Hirsch
`
`22· reference and the Martin reference.· Correct?
`
`23· · · ·A· · What -- can I see them?
`
`24· · · ·Q· · Yes.
`
`IPR Page 14 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · (Exhibit 1005 was previously marked and
`
`·2· referred to.)
`
`·3· · · ·Q· · Exhibit 1005 is a copy of an article
`
`·4· titled, "Noise Estimation Techniques for Robust
`
`·5· Speech Recognition," authored by H.G. Hirsch and
`
`·6· C. Ehrlicher.· Are you familiar with Exhibit 1005?
`
`·7· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·8· · · ·Q· · I'll refer to 1005 as "the Hirsch
`
`·9· reference" or "Hirsch."· Is that fair?
`
`10· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`11· · · · · · (Exhibit 1006 was previously marked and
`
`12· referred to.)
`
`13· · · ·Q· · I'm going to hand you what's been marked
`
`14· as Exhibit 1006.· Exhibit 1006 to the 626 petition
`
`15· is a copy of an article entitled, "An Efficient
`
`16· Algorithm to Estimate the Instantaneous SNR of
`
`17· Speech Signals," by Rainer Martin.
`
`18· · · · · · Are you familiar with what has been
`
`19· marked as Exhibit 1006?
`
`20· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`21· · · ·Q· · You rely on -- I'll refer to Exhibit
`
`22· 1006 as the Martin reference.· Is that fair?
`
`23· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`24· · · ·Q· · You rely on both the Hirsch reference
`
`IPR Page 15 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· and the Martin reference in your analysis of the
`
`·2· validity of the '345 patent claims.· Is that
`
`·3· correct?
`
`·4· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·5· · · ·Q· · And your -- is it your opinion that the
`
`·6· Hirsch reference anticipates claims 4 to 11 of the
`
`·7· '345 patent?
`
`·8· · · ·A· · Well, in my declaration I say Hirsch --
`
`·9· I don't specifically call out -- is there a
`
`10· specific spot in my declaration that you're
`
`11· referring to?
`
`12· · · ·Q· · Why don't you take a look at the Table
`
`13· of Contents.· It's on Roman numeral iii.
`
`14· · · ·A· · Background?
`
`15· · · ·Q· · Analysis of the Prior Art and the '345
`
`16· Claims --
`
`17· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`18· · · ·Q· · -- Section VII.
`
`19· · · ·A· · Okay.
`
`20· · · ·Q· · So do you have an opinion as to whether
`
`21· or not the Hirsch reference anticipates claims 4
`
`22· to 11 of the '345 patent?
`
`23· · · ·A· · I have a -- so if I look at my
`
`24· declaration, Hirsch -- I describe Hirsch in the
`
`IPR Page 16 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· context of -- on page 44 and elements of claims 1
`
`·2· through 3, 12, 13, 21, 23, and 38.· And then
`
`·3· Martin 4 through 11, 29 through 42.· So I -- I'm
`
`·4· not sure how to answer your question.
`
`·5· · · ·Q· · Do you understand the difference between
`
`·6· anticipation and obviousness?
`
`·7· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·8· · · ·Q· · With respect to invalidity analysis?
`
`·9· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`10· · · ·Q· · So let me ask again.
`
`11· · · · · · Is it your opinion that the Hirsch
`
`12· reference anticipates claims 4 to 11 of the '345
`
`13· patent?
`
`14· · · ·A· · Well, to the extent that my declaration
`
`15· combines -- let me just see.· (Document review.)
`
`16· · · · · · This one -- I have to look at the
`
`17· patent.· (Document review.)
`
`18· · · · · · So Hirsch -- you're asking the context
`
`19· of Hirsch by itself?
`
`20· · · ·Q· · The question was whether you have an
`
`21· opinion as to whether the Hirsch reference
`
`22· anticipates claims 4 to 11 of the '345 patent.
`
`23· · · ·A· · So Hirsch by itself.
`
`24· · · ·Q· · That's correct.
`
`IPR Page 17 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A· · I don't seem -- I don't have an opinion
`
`·2· on that listed in my declaration.
`
`·3· · · ·Q· · What did you do to prepare for today's
`
`·4· deposition?
`
`·5· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· I'll object to the extent
`
`·6· it calls for privileged or work product protected
`
`·7· information.· I caution the witness not to reveal
`
`·8· the substance of communications with counsel.
`
`·9· Subject to that, you may answer.
`
`10· · · ·A· · I came here on Tuesday and spent the
`
`11· last two days preparing, discussing the material.
`
`12· · · ·Q· · And did you review a copy of your
`
`13· declaration that we've marked as Exhibit 1003 in
`
`14· connection with your preparation for today's
`
`15· deposition?
`
`16· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`17· · · ·Q· · And in your declaration, you do not
`
`18· contend that the Hirsch reference anticipates
`
`19· claims 4 to 11 of the '345 patent.· Isn't that
`
`20· correct?
`
`21· · · ·A· · Not by itself, no.
`
`22· · · ·Q· · Do you have an opinion as to whether
`
`23· claims 4 to 11 of the '345 patent are invalid?
`
`24· · · ·A· · Again, to the extent that the
`
`IPR Page 18 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· declaration says so, yes.
`
`·2· · · ·Q· · That's what I'm asking you.· Does the
`
`·3· declaration make the contention that the claims 4
`
`·4· to 11 of the '345 patent are invalid?
`
`·5· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· · And what is your basis for your opinion
`
`·7· that the claims 4 to 11 of the '345 patent are
`
`·8· invalid?
`
`·9· · · ·A· · I say on page 54 that Martin describes
`
`10· the elements of the claims 4 through 11.
`
`11· · · ·Q· · Is it your opinion that the Martin
`
`12· reference anticipates claims 4 to 11 of the '345
`
`13· patent?
`
`14· · · ·A· · (Document review.)
`
`15· · · · · · I'm sorry, Martin by itself?
`
`16· · · ·Q· · Yes.
`
`17· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`18· · · ·Q· · It's your opinion that the Martin
`
`19· reference anticipates claims 4 to 11 of the '345
`
`20· patent?
`
`21· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`22· · · ·Q· · Can you point me to where in your
`
`23· declaration you offer that opinion or that
`
`24· conclusion.
`
`IPR Page 19 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A· · Starting on page -- or paragraph 133.
`
`·2· · · ·Q· · Do you understand that claim 4 depends
`
`·3· from claim 1 of the '345 patent?
`
`·4· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·5· · · ·Q· · Do you understand that claim 4 includes
`
`·6· all the elements of claim 1?
`
`·7· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·8· · · ·Q· · Do you have an opinion as to whether the
`
`·9· Martin reference anticipates claim 1 of the '345
`
`10· patent?
`
`11· · · ·A· · Again, by itself, I have no opinion of
`
`12· that in my declaration.
`
`13· · · ·Q· · So your declaration -- in your
`
`14· declaration you don't contend that the Martin
`
`15· reference anticipates claim 1 of the '345 patent?
`
`16· · · ·A· · That's correct.
`
`17· · · ·Q· · So if Martin does not anticipate claim 1
`
`18· of the '345 patent, Martin cannot anticipate claim
`
`19· 4 of the '345 patent.· Is that correct?
`
`20· · · ·A· · I didn't contend that -- there's two
`
`21· things there.· I didn't contend that Martin
`
`22· doesn't anticipate claim 1, but claim 4 is more
`
`23· restrictive than claim 1.· So I'm not sure I
`
`24· understand the logic.
`
`IPR Page 20 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·Q· · Does your declaration rely on a
`
`·2· combination of Hirsch and Martin with respect to
`
`·3· the alleged invalidity of claims 4 to 11 of the
`
`·4· '345 patent?
`
`·5· · · ·A· · So my declaration talks about Martin by
`
`·6· itself in the context of claims 4 through 11.
`
`·7· · · ·Q· · How did you determine that the elements
`
`·8· of claim 4 were shown in the prior art?
`
`·9· · · ·A· · Well, I would read claim 4 of the '345,
`
`10· the specification, and then examine the prior art
`
`11· to see if I saw substantially the same thing.
`
`12· · · ·Q· · Did you start your analysis of the
`
`13· alleged invalidity of the '345 patents -- '345
`
`14· patent with claim 1?
`
`15· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`16· · · ·Q· · And it's your opinion that Hirsch
`
`17· discloses all of the elements of claim 1.· Is that
`
`18· correct?
`
`19· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`20· · · ·Q· · But it's your -- is it also your opinion
`
`21· that Hirsch does not disclose the elements of
`
`22· claim 4?
`
`23· · · ·A· · No.· My declaration just uses Hirsch in
`
`24· the context of claims 1 through 3, 12, 13, 21, 23,
`
`IPR Page 21 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· and 38.
`
`·2· · · ·Q· · Do you have an opinion as to whether
`
`·3· Hirsch discloses the elements of claim 4 of the
`
`·4· '345 patent?
`
`·5· · · ·A· · No, I don't.· I don't have an opinion on
`
`·6· that.
`
`·7· · · ·Q· · Let's take a look at the Martin
`
`·8· reference, which we've marked as Exhibit 1006.
`
`·9· · · · · · Can you describe at a high level the
`
`10· algorithm that the Martin article describes.
`
`11· · · ·A· · So Martin -- Martin is interested in the
`
`12· context of speech signals and speech processing to
`
`13· estimate the noise spectrum of the -- of a speech
`
`14· signal in the context of reducing the noise.
`
`15· · · ·Q· · Does the Martin reference employ windows
`
`16· and subwindows in its algorithm?
`
`17· · · ·A· · Yes.· Martin has a parameter W called
`
`18· the window, and I believe -- I believe there's a
`
`19· subwindow, although I can't find it right at the
`
`20· moment.
`
`21· · · ·Q· · So what does W represent in the Martin
`
`22· algorithm?
`
`23· · · ·A· · On page 1094, "decomposed into W windows
`
`24· of length M," so window.
`
`IPR Page 22 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·Q· · So does W represent the number of
`
`·2· subwindows?
`
`·3· · · ·A· · I'm not sure I can answer that.· I don't
`
`·4· know the context of the subwindows.
`
`·5· · · ·Q· · Let's look at page 1094 of Martin.
`
`·6· · · · · · Under the bottom of the left-hand column
`
`·7· under "Noise power estimation" -- do you see that
`
`·8· section?
`
`·9· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`10· · · ·Q· · -- the second sentence of that section
`
`11· states, "For reasons of computational complexity
`
`12· and delay, the data window of length L is
`
`13· decomposed into W windows of length M such that M
`
`14· times W equals L."
`
`15· · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`16· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`17· · · ·Q· · Is it fair to say that the Martin
`
`18· reference employs windows of length L and multiple
`
`19· subwindows that will correspond to the variable W?
`
`20· · · ·A· · Well, Martin calls them windows so I
`
`21· don't know the context of the subwindows.
`
`22· · · ·Q· · It says that "the data window of length
`
`23· L is decomposed into W windows of length M."
`
`24· · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`IPR Page 23 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·2· · · ·Q· · Does that tell you that the window
`
`·3· length L is comprised of subwindows of length W?
`
`·4· · · ·A· · I guess we can call them subwindows, but
`
`·5· that's not what Martin uses.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· · It's true that Martin does describe L
`
`·7· being divided into further divisions of W windows.
`
`·8· Correct?
`
`·9· · · ·A· · Uh-hmm.· Yes.· Sorry.
`
`10· · · ·Q· · And you need to answer yes or no.
`
`11· · · ·A· · Right.· Sorry.
`
`12· · · ·Q· · So for the purposes of the deposition,
`
`13· I'm going to refer to the window length L as a
`
`14· window and the W windows that comprise that L
`
`15· window as subwindows.· Is that fair?
`
`16· · · ·A· · Okay.
`
`17· · · ·Q· · Now, in your analysis of the Martin
`
`18· reference, do you assume W to be equal to a
`
`19· particular number?
`
`20· · · ·A· · (Document review.)
`
`21· · · · · · Yes.· On page 58 I assume -- I say, set
`
`22· W equal to 1.
`
`23· · · ·Q· · So you said page 58 of your declaration?
`
`24· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`IPR Page 24 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·Q· · And does that assumption that W equals 1
`
`·2· apply to all of your analysis with respect to the
`
`·3· Martin reference?
`
`·4· · · ·A· · Sure --
`
`·5· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`·6· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Sorry.
`
`·7· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· I object to form.
`
`·8· · · ·Q· · If your attorney objects, you still have
`
`·9· to answer the question.
`
`10· · · ·A· · Okay.· So W equals 1 applies to at least
`
`11· some of my analysis.
`
`12· · · ·Q· · Which analysis is that?
`
`13· · · ·A· · Well, the part where I say W equals 1
`
`14· starting at paragraph 136.
`
`15· · · ·Q· · If W equals 2 or more, do your opinions
`
`16· with respect to the Martin reference still hold
`
`17· true?
`
`18· · · ·A· · Yes.· I think so, yes.
`
`19· · · ·Q· · Which sections of your declaration, if
`
`20· any, analyze the Martin reference where W is equal
`
`21· to 2 or more?
`
`22· · · ·A· · Yes, in section 136 I say W equals 1 for
`
`23· purposes of the illustration, but I don't say
`
`24· anything specific about W in other portions.· So I
`
`IPR Page 25 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· don't believe I made any assumptions about W in
`
`·2· the parts where I don't say anything.
`
`·3· · · ·Q· · So if we look at paragraph 137 on page
`
`·4· 58 of your declaration --
`
`·5· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· · -- the first sentence there indicates
`
`·7· that you're assuming -- making an assumption about
`
`·8· Martin's algorithm.· Do you see that?
`
`·9· · · ·A· · I see "Assume that Martin's algorithm,"
`
`10· yes.
`
`11· · · ·Q· · In the rest of that sentence, you're
`
`12· making the assumption that W equals 1.
`
`13· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`14· · · ·Q· · There you use the term "subwindows."
`
`15· Correct?
`
`16· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`17· · · ·Q· · So you're familiar with the term
`
`18· "subwindows"?
`
`19· · · ·A· · Yes.· I use that term here to
`
`20· distinguish it from the windows.
`
`21· · · ·Q· · That's your term.· You're describing the
`
`22· number of windows within window length L as
`
`23· subwindows.· Is that correct?
`
`24· · · ·A· · Correct.
`
`IPR Page 26 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·Q· · Then in paragraph 139 you're also noting
`
`·2· that either of the lower boxes circled in blue
`
`·3· Pn(i) equals PMmin because W equals 1.· Correct?
`
`·4· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·5· · · ·Q· · Is that assumption that W equals 1
`
`·6· applicable throughout the rest of your
`
`·7· declaration?
`
`·8· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to the form.
`
`·9· · · ·A· · Only where I use W equals 1 explicitly
`
`10· can I answer that, and only in those locations do
`
`11· I assume W equals 1.· I make no assumptions about
`
`12· W in other parts.
`
`13· · · ·Q· · All right.· I want you to assume a
`
`14· couple assumptions with respect to how the Martin
`
`15· algorithm works.· So if you assume that L is equal
`
`16· to .156 seconds.· Do you have that?
`
`17· · · ·A· · Hold on one second.· L is an integer, I
`
`18· think.· It's number of samples.
`
`19· · · ·Q· · L is the length of the overall window.
`
`20· · · ·A· · Sorry, I don't understand the context.
`
`21· · · ·Q· · It's on page 1094.· If you look at page
`
`22· 1094 of the Martin reference, it's the bottom of
`
`23· the left-hand column going into the top of the
`
`24· right-hand column.· We read this sentence earlier.
`
`IPR Page 27 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· "For reasons of computational complexity and
`
`·2· delay, the data window of length L is decomposed
`
`·3· into W windows of length M such that M times W
`
`·4· equals L."
`
`·5· · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`·6· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·7· · · ·Q· · So L is the length of the overall
`
`·8· window.· Correct?
`
`·9· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`10· · · ·Q· · And W is the number of subwindows.
`
`11· Correct?
`
`12· · · ·A· · Okay, yes.
`
`13· · · ·Q· · I want you to assume that L in this
`
`14· hypothetical is equal to .156 seconds.· Okay?
`
`15· · · ·A· · Again, the L -- I'm not sure I follow
`
`16· that L -- L should be an integer for this to work,
`
`17· I think.
`
`18· · · ·Q· · If you go back to the Martin reference,
`
`19· to page 1094, it discloses in the very next
`
`20· sentence that we read earlier that "For a sampling
`
`21· rate of f8 equals 8 kHz, typical window parameters
`
`22· are M equals 1250 and W equals 4, thus equals L
`
`23· equals 5000 corresponding to a time window of
`
`24· 0.625 s."
`
`IPR Page 28 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·3· · · ·Q· · So is that stating that L corresponds to
`
`·4· a time window of .625 seconds?
`
`·5· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So I would like you to assume
`
`·7· that L corresponds to a time window of .156
`
`·8· seconds.· Does that make sense?
`
`·9· · · ·A· · I'm not sure it does because there are
`
`10· other parameters here, such as the sampling rate
`
`11· and the window parameters, like the M and the W,
`
`12· to give me an L value that's an integer.· So if
`
`13· you ask me for, I think, a time window of .156
`
`14· seconds, I don't know what L that corresponds to.
`
`15· · · · · · MR. LENNIE:· Let's go off the record and
`
`16· take a quick break.
`
`17· · · · · · · ·(A brief recess was taken.)
`
`18· · · · · · MR. LENNIE:· We can go back on the
`
`19· record.
`
`20· BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`21· · · ·Q· · Dr. Hochwald, at the break did you have
`
`22· an opportunity to talk to your attorneys at all?
`
`23· · · ·A· · No.
`
`24· · · ·Q· · So the Martin reference, as we
`
`IPR Page 29 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· discussed, discloses an example where L is equal
`
`·2· to 5000 that corresponds to a time window of .625
`
`·3· seconds.· Is that correct?
`
`·4· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·5· · · ·Q· · It also discusses W equal 4, which would
`
`·6· mean there are four subwindows.· Is that correct?
`
`·7· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·8· · · ·Q· · On page 1094 of the Martin reference,
`
`·9· figure 2 identifies a flowchart of the SNR
`
`10· estimation algorithm.· Is that correct?
`
`11· · · ·A· · Yes, that's the title.
`
`12· · · ·Q· · Are you familiar with figure 2?
`
`13· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`14· · · ·Q· · Figure 2 is a little bit difficult to
`
`15· read in the copy of the reference that we have so
`
`16· I'm going to mark as Exhibit 2 a reproduced copy
`
`17· of figure 2.
`
`18· · · · · · (Exhibit 2 was marked for identification
`
`19· and attached to the deposition transcript.)
`
`20· BY MR. LENNIE:
`
`21· · · ·Q· · Just take a minute just to confirm to
`
`22· your own satisfaction that what we've marked as
`
`23· Exhibit 2 is the same diagram, flowchart that's
`
`24· shown in figure 2 of the Martin reference.
`
`IPR Page 30 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A· · Yes, it looks like it.
`
`·2· · · ·Q· · And you're familiar with figure 2 and
`
`·3· how figure 2 describes the flowchart of Martin's
`
`·4· algorithm.· Right?
`
`·5· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· · All right.· I want to direct your
`
`·7· attention to the first diamond block in figure 2.
`
`·8· · · ·A· · Okay.
`
`·9· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`10· · · ·Q· · And this is the block that includes
`
`11· Px(i) is less than PMmin.
`
`12· · · · · · Do you see that?
`
`13· · · ·A· · Px with the bar on it.
`
`14· · · ·Q· · Yes.
`
`15· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`16· · · ·Q· · What does Px(i) represent in this block?
`
`17· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form,
`
`18· foundation.
`
`19· · · ·A· · Martin characterizes it as the smoothed
`
`20· short time power estimate.
`
`21· · · ·Q· · And what does PMmin represent?
`
`22· · · ·A· · I'm not sure of the wording used by
`
`23· Martin.· It appears -- it appears to be the power
`
`24· minimum -- power minimum is the best I can do from
`
`IPR Page 31 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· the reference.
`
`·2· · · ·Q· · Your declaration relies extensively on
`
`·3· Martin's disclosure of PMmin in your invalidity
`
`·4· analysis.· Isn't that correct?
`
`·5· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· · What does PMmin represent in this first
`
`·7· diamond block of figure 2?
`
`·8· · · ·A· · So PMmin is a variable, and Martin
`
`·9· attaches a name to it and uses it in the context
`
`10· of an algorithm.· What it means in the particular
`
`11· portion of the algorithm is subject to the context
`
`12· because the algorithm has a beginning and end and
`
`13· middle.
`
`14· · · ·Q· · What does PMmin represent in this first
`
`15· diamond where the diamond states Px(i) is less
`
`16· than PMmin?
`
`17· · · ·A· · What it means in any particular portion
`
`18· is, I think, very hard to say and, in particular,
`
`19· in that first diamond.
`
`20· · · ·Q· · What is the comparison being done in the
`
`21· diamond block Px(i) is less than PMmin?
`
`22· · · ·A· · It's checking to see if this condition
`
`23· Px(i) bar less than PMmin is satisfied.
`
`24· · · ·Q· · And what does Px(i) represent?
`
`IPR Page 32 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A· · Px bar (i) represents the smoothed short
`
`·2· time power estimate, according to Martin.
`
`·3· · · ·Q· · So what happens if PMmin is greater than
`
`·4· Px(i) in this first top diamond in figure 2?
`
`·5· · · ·A· · So if the condition is met, then PMmin
`
`·6· is set to Px bar (i).
`
`·7· · · ·Q· · What happens if PMmin is less than
`
`·8· Px(i)?
`
`·9· · · ·A· · Then it passes through to the next
`
`10· block, next diamond.
`
`11· · · ·Q· · Assume for purposes of these next
`
`12· questions that W equals 4.· So we have four
`
`13· subwindows.· Correct?
`
`14· · · ·A· · Okay.
`
`15· · · ·Q· · And then further assume that L equals
`
`16· 5000 and corresponds to a time window of .625
`
`17· seconds.· Okay?
`
`18· · · ·A· · Okay.
`
`19· · · ·Q· · So with those assumptions, in this
`
`20· diamond block that we've been discussing, how many
`
`21· times will PMmin be replaced with Px(i)?
`
`22· · · · · · MR. BROUGHAN:· Object to form.
`
`23· · · ·A· · I don't think I can answer that without
`
`24· more information.· I haven't considered that in my
`
`IPR Page 33 of 221
`
`
`
`·1· declaration.
`
`·2· · · ·Q· · What information -- what additional
`
`·3· information
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
