UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, DC
`
`Before the Honorable Thomas B. Pender
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-949
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN AUDIO PROCESSING
`HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S
`INITIAL MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`
`
`Margaret D. Macdonald, Director
`Jeffrey T. Hsu, Supervisory Attorney
`Lisa A. Murray, Investigative Attorney
`OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street SW, Suite 401
`Washington, DC 20436
`202-205-2734
`202-205-2158 (facsimile)
`
`
`
`
`October 19, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, Cover
`
`

`
`
`
`Table of Contents1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
`
`Legal Standards ....................................................................................................................2
`
`III.
`
`Technology Overview ..........................................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Audio Processing Technology at the Relevant Time ...............................................7
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................................9
`
`“Most Significant” Disputed Claim Terms ............................................................10
`
`IV.
`
`The ’345 Patent ..................................................................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`Disputed Claim Constructions ...............................................................................13
`
`1. magnitude of the frequency bin/magnitude of the corresponding
`frequency bin (claims 1, 38)* ..........................................................................13
`
`2. current minimum value (claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 39) .........................................16
`
`3. future minimum value (claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 39, 40) .........................................18
`
`4. subtractor for subtracting said noise elements/subtracting said noise
`elements (claims 13, 38) ..................................................................................20
`
`B.
`
`Agreed Claim Constructions ..................................................................................22
`
`V.
`
`The ’637 Patent ..................................................................................................................23
`
`A.
`
`Disputed Claim Construction .................................................................................25
`
`1. canceled (claims 1, 5, 8, 12)* ..........................................................................25
`
`B.
`
`Agreed Claim Constructions ..................................................................................29
`
`VI.
`
`The ’607 Patent ..................................................................................................................32
`
`A.
`
`Disputed Claim Constructions ...............................................................................33
`
`1. interference signal (claims 1, 2, 25, 26)* .........................................................33
`
`a) Claims 1 and 25 .........................................................................................35
`
`
`1 Claim terms marked with an asterisk are terms that the parties have identified as “most
`significant to the resolution of the case” in accordance with Ground Rule 8.3.
`
`- i -
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. i
`
`

`
`
`
`b) Claims 2 and 26 .........................................................................................37
`
`2. main signal (claims 5, 8, 12, 29, 32, 36)* ........................................................40
`
`3. transform function (claims 9, 33)*...................................................................43
`
`4. 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)* ...................................................................46
`
`5. 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)* .................................................................48
`
`6. band-limited . . . (target, interference) . . . signals (claims 1, 25, 27)* ............49
`
`7. adaptively filtering . . . each band-limited interference signal from
`each corresponding band-limited target signal (claim 25)* .............................50
`
`B.
`
`Agreed Claim Constructions ..................................................................................52
`
`VII. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................53
`
`- ii -
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. ii
`
`

`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................ 2
`
`AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns., Inc., 504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............. 29
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................... 26
`
`Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................ 35
`
`Ballard Med. Products v. Allegiance Healthcare Corp., 268 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.
`2001) ....................................................................................................................................... 26
`
`Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................. 5, 6
`
`Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................. 41, 44, 45
`
`Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir.
`2002) ......................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................... 5
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated
`on other grounds by Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. 2120 ....................................................................... 40
`
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................. 3
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp. (Canada), 2015 WL 5060947 (Fed. Cir.
`Aug. 28, 2015) ........................................................................................................................ 35
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. International Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir.
`2006) ................................................................................................................................. 41, 44
`
`Epcon Gas Sys. v. Bauer Compressors, 279 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ....................................... 4
`
`In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) .................................................... 29
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir.
`2004)) .............................................................................................................................. 3, 4, 42
`
`L & P Prop. v. JTM, LLC, 578 F. Supp. 2d 318 (D. Mass. 2008) ................................................ 26
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................... 4, 47
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) .................................................... 35
`
`- iii -
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. iii
`
`

`
`
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) .......................................................................................................... 3, 4, 5
`
`Multiform Dessicants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................... 2
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ............................. 35, 37, 39, 46
`
`Network Commerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 422 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................. 6
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................ 26, 29
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co. Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir.
`2008) ......................................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc., v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................... 4, 52
`
`On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................ 4
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d
`696 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................................ 35
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................... passim
`
`Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................... 5, 47
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms., Inc., 438 F.3d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................... 6
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................... 5
`
`RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pacific Keystone Techs., 326 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................ 5, 15, 47
`
`Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................ 5, 6
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) ...................................................... 3
`
`Texas Digital Sys. Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................... 4
`
`Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ......................................... 3
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................. 4, 6, 15
`
`ZMI Corp. v. Cardiac Resuscitator Corp., 884 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .................................. 5
`
`Statutes
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337 ............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`- iv -
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. iv
`
`

`
`
`
`Administrative Determinations
`
`Certain Gel-Filled Wrist Rests and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`456, Order No. 9 (Jan. 2, 2002) (EDIS Doc. 63669) .............................................................. 40
`
`Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof, Consol. Inv. Nos. 937/928,
`Order No. 12 (Mar. 30, 2015) (EDIS Doc. 554127) ............................................................... 35
`
`Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No.
`337-TA-800, USITC Pub. 4475, Initial Det. (June 2014) ........................................................ 2
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP § 2173.05(e) (9th ed. Mar. 2014) ...................................................................................... 41
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. v
`
`

`
`
`
`Table of Exhibits
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,377,637
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607
`
`The Oxford English Dictionary (1984 ed.) (excerpt)
`
`IEEE 100, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards
`Terms (7th ed. 2000) (excerpt)
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`Exhibit 3
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. vi
`
`

`
`-1-
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`In accordance with Order No. 16 (Aug. 7, 2015) and Ground Rule 8.4, the Commission
`
`Investigative Staff (“Staff”) respectfully submits this initial claim construction brief setting forth
`
`and explaining its proposed construction for each of the disputed claim terms in the patents
`
`asserted in this investigation.
`
`This investigation was instituted on March 11, 2015, based on a complaint filed by
`
`Complainant Andrea Electronics Corp. (“Andrea”) on February 9, 2015. Notice of Institution of
`
`Investigation, 80 Fed. Reg. 14,159, 14,160 (Mar. 18, 2015). The complaint alleged violations of
`
`Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, based on the importation
`
`and/or sale of certain audio processing hardware and software, and products containing the same,
`
`that allegedly infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,825,898 (“the ’898 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,483,923
`
`(“the ’923 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 (“the ’607 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`
`(“the ’345 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 6,377,637 (“the ’637 patent”). Id. Andrea has
`
`subsequently moved for partial termination of the investigation with regard to the ’898 and ’923
`
`patents, which are due to expire before the October 13, 2016 target date. Mot. Docket No.
`
`949-027 (Sept. 2, 2015); see Order No. 10 (Jul. 20, 2015) (setting 19-month target date)
`
`(nonreviewed Aug. 14, 2015). Thus, the only patents that the parties are expected to address in
`
`these claim construction proceedings are the asserted ’345, ’637, and ’607 patents. See J. Claim
`
`Constr. Chart (Sept. 25, 2015) (EDIS Doc. 566205).
`
`The Respondents in this investigation are Acer Inc.; Acer America Corp.; ASUSTeK
`
`Computer Inc.; ASUS Computer International; Dell Inc.; Hewlett Packard Co.; Lenovo Holding
`
`Co., Inc.; Lenovo (United States) Inc.; Toshiba Corp.; Toshiba American Information Systems,
`
`Inc.; and Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (collectively “Respondents”). See 80 Fed. Reg.
`
`at 14,160. The investigation has been terminated as to former Respondents Lenovo Group Ltd.
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. 1
`
`

`
`-2-
`
`and Toshiba America, Inc. Order Nos. 4-5 (Apr. 7, 2015) (nonreviewed May 5, 2015). In
`
`addition, two third parties have sought and obtained nonrespondent intervenor status: Contexant
`
`Systems, Inc. and Waves Audio, Ltd. (collectively “Intervenors”). Order No. 15 (Aug. 7, 2015)
`
`(nonreviewed Sept. 10, 2015).
`
`In accordance with the procedural schedule set in Order No. 16 (Aug. 7, 2015), the
`
`parties in this investigation exchanged lists of claim terms to be construed on September 4, 2015.
`
`On September 18, 2015, the parties exchanged proposed claim constructions for these terms.
`
`After continued discussions that resulted in a number of agreed-upon joint constructions, the
`
`parties compiled a chart listing each parties’ proposed construction for each of the remaining
`
`disputed claim terms. The parties filed this chart with the Commission on September 25, 2015.
`
`See J. Claim Constr. Chart. Initial claim construction briefs are due on October 19, 2015, and
`
`rebuttal claim construction briefs are due on November 2, 2015. A Markman hearing is
`
`scheduled for November 16-17, 2015, and a Markman order is tentatively scheduled to issue by
`
`December 8, 2015. See Order No. 16.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`The purpose of claim construction is to explain disputed and material claim language in a
`
`way that will be useful to the decision maker. See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation
`
`Tech. Co. Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544
`
`F.3d 1341, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“claims are construed as an aid to the decision-maker, by
`
`restating the claims in non-technical terms”) (citing Multiform Dessicants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.,
`
`133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to
`
`be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Certain Wireless
`
`Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-800, USITC Pub.
`
`4475, Initial Det. at 19 n.7 (June 2014).
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. 2
`
`

`
`-3-
`
`Claim construction is generally treated as a matter of law. See Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`However, claim construction may involve underlying factual determinations. See Teva Pharms.
`
`USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 837-38 (2015). Claims should be given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, viewing the claim
`
`terms in the context of the entire patent. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005). In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language is readily apparent and claim
`
`construction will involve “little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of
`
`commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. In other cases, claim terms have a specialized
`
`meaning and it is necessary to determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood the disputed claim language to mean by analyzing “the words of the claims
`
`themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence
`
`concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.”
`
`Id. (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`The scope of a patent claim is defined by the claim language. Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v.
`
`Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 807 (Fed. Cir. 2002). It is the claims that delimit a
`
`patentee’s right to exclude, Markman, 52 F.3d at 978, and therefore “[w]hile claim terms are
`
`understood in light of the specification, a claim construction must not import limitations from the
`
`specification into the claims.” Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323); Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368,
`
`1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Words in a claim are presumed to carry their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. On Demand Mach. Corp.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. 3
`
`

`
`-4-
`
`v. Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. The
`
`same claim term or phrase must be construed consistently where it appears in claims of common
`
`ancestry, whereas differences among the claims can be useful in understanding the meaning of
`
`claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-15; Epcon Gas Sys. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279
`
`F.3d 1022, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the
`
`same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). Additionally, every claim
`
`term is presumed to have meaning, and any construction that renders a claim term superfluous is
`
`discouraged. Innova, 381 F.3d at 1119. In these regards, the doctrine of claim differentiation
`
`assists in determining whether a limitation in a dependent claim should be read into an
`
`independent claim. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(“[W]here the limitation that is sought to be ‘read into’ an independent claim already appears in a
`
`dependent claim, the doctrine of claim differentiation is at its strongest.”).
`
`Analysis of the claim language, however, is not done in a vacuum. Claims are also to be
`
`read in view of the patent specification. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The Federal Circuit has
`
`repeatedly confirmed that the specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
`
`term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. While a patentee is free to act as his or her own
`
`lexicographer, any special definition given to a word must be clear from the specification.
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The specification
`
`plays a primary role because it functions as a sort of dictionary, explaining the invention and
`
`defining the terms used in the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[C]laims . . . do not stand
`
`alone. Rather, they are part of a ‘fully integrated written instrument,’ consisting principally of a
`
`specification that concludes with the claims.”) (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 978) (citations
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. 4
`
`

`
`-5-
`
`omitted). For that reason, claims “must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a
`
`part.” Id. (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 979). However, claims are not usually limited in scope
`
`simply to the preferred embodiment(s) disclosed in the patent specification. RF Delaware, Inc.
`
`v. Pacific Keystone Techs., Inc., 326 F.3d 1255, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Likewise, statements
`
`pertaining to a specific embodiment of the invention, rather than to the invention as a whole, do
`
`not operate to limit the claims in that regard. Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1323
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008). “The 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.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d
`
`1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`Claims must also be read in view of the prosecution history to determine whether the
`
`inventor has used any terms in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning or with
`
`positions taken during prosecution. Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090,
`
`1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1995). The prosecution history consists of the complete record of the patent examination
`
`proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including cited prior art. Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1317. It may reveal “how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor
`
`limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it
`
`would otherwise be.” Id.; see also Rhodia Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The purpose of consulting the prosecution history in construing a claim is to
`
`‘exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.’” (quoting ZMI Corp. v.
`
`Cardiac Resuscitator Corp., 844 F.2d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). In this regard, any
`
`“arguments made during prosecution regarding the meaning of a claim term are relevant to the
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. 5
`
`

`
`-6-
`
`interpretation of that term in every claim of the patent absent a clear indication to the contrary.”
`
`Southwall Techs, 54 F.3d at 1579. “Thus, when the patentee unequivocally and unambiguously
`
`disavows a certain meaning to obtain a patent, the doctrine of prosecution history disclaimer
`
`narrows the meaning of the claim consistent with the scope of the claim surrendered.” Biogen,
`
`713 F.3d at 1095. A prosecution disclaimer only occurs if there has been a clear and deliberate
`
`disavowal. See Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms., Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1136 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006).
`
`In addition to intrinsic evidence, extrinsic evidence may be considered if necessary to
`
`explain scientific principles, technical terms, and terms of art that appear in the patent and
`
`prosecution history. Extrinsic evidence consists of all evidence external to the patent and
`
`prosecution history, including “expert [and] inventor testimony, dictionaries, and technical
`
`treatises and articles.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584. Expert testimony may be useful 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.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Nevertheless, extrinsic evidence is
`
`less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history, and “is unlikely to result in a reliable
`
`interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.”
`
`Id. at 1319. In addition, extrinsic evidence in the form of expert testimony that is at odds with
`
`the intrinsic evidence must be disregarded. Network Commerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 422
`
`F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318.
`
`III. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
`
`The application that led to the ’345 patent was filed on February 18, 1999. The filing
`
`date for the’637 patent is July 12, 2000, and the filing date for the ’607 patent is September 18,
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. 6
`
`

`
`-7-
`
`1998. Thus, the relevant time period to consider when determining the state of the art is
`
`approximately 1998-2000.
`
`A. Audio Processing Technology at the Relevant Time
`
`The asserted patents generally relate to the field of audio processing, with a particular
`
`focus on processing audio signals to remove noise and interference. Compl. ¶ 67 (Feb. 9, 2015).
`
`The goal is to enhance the clarity of communications between electronic devices, even if that
`
`communication takes place in a noisy environment. Id. For example, audio processing
`
`technology may be used in personal computers, enabling noise-free communication even in a
`
`noisy environment such as a coffee shop. Id. ¶ 68.
`
`By 1998, teleconferences had become a routine part of the business world, and internet
`
`conferencing was becoming popular. Exhibit 3 (’607 patent) at 1:22-31. One problem presented
`
`by teleconferencing was the presence of unwanted echoes in transmissions. When a distant
`
`speaker spoke into a far-end microphone, the sound would be transmitted electronically and
`
`broadcast from a loudspeaker at the near end of the teleconference. Id. at 1:32-46. While the
`
`near-end speaker replied, the near-end microphone would pick up not only the near-end
`
`speaker’s voice, but also anything broadcast from the near-end loudspeaker and reverberations
`
`resulting from that broadcast sound. As a result, the far-end teleconference participant would
`
`hear an undesired delayed echo of his or her own voice. Id. The problem was especially
`
`pronounced in video and internet conferencing systems. Id. at 1:46-48.
`
`At the time, the simplest way to overcome the problem of echo was by “ducking,”
`
`meaning that the system would block the near-end microphone while the far-end signal was
`
`being broadcast through the near-end loudspeaker. Id. at 1:49-53. The result was unsatisfactory
`
`because it resulted in “half-duplex” communication, in which only one person could be heard at
`
`a time. Id. at 1:54-61. The’607 patent professed to enable echo-free “full-duplex”
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. 7
`
`

`
`-8-
`
`communication, in which multiple speakers could transmit at the same time. The ’607 invention
`
`employed an echo canceling system that measured the signals sent from the far end of the
`
`teleconference, estimated the resulting signal present at the near-end microphone (including the
`
`reverberations), and subtracted the signals representing the echo from the near-end microphone
`
`signals. The resulting echo-free signals were then transmitted back to the far-end system. Id.
`
`at 1:62-2:2.
`
`During the relevant time period, audio processing was not limited to two-way
`
`teleconferences. Speech processing algorithms in use at the time also included dictation, voice
`
`activation, and voice compression, in which speech was transmitted in a variety of noisy
`
`environments. Exhibit 1 (’345 patent) at 1:24-27. In any such system, it was desirable to reduce
`
`the transmission of ambient noise without affecting the speech and its characteristics. Id.
`
`at 1:27-29. Often this was done by placing a near-field noise-canceling microphone near the
`
`speaker’s mouth, often by mounting the microphone on a boom attached to a headset. Id.
`
`at 1:30-35. Another solution was to use microphone array technology, which worked well in
`
`situations involving “severe directional noises.” With an array of microphones, it was possible
`
`to map the noise field and nullify undesired noises coming from particular directions. Id.
`
`at 1:38-45. However, these solutions did not work well in situations where the noise sources
`
`were diffused and it was uncomfortable or impractical to use a headset, such as when engaging
`
`in hands-free voice communication in an automobile. Id. at 1:46-54. The ’345 patent addressed
`
`this problem through a “spectral subtraction” technique. The technique called for generating a
`
`frequency spectrum of the audio signal consisting of a range of frequency bins. Noise in the
`
`audio signal was then detected by comparing the magnitude of each frequency bin against a
`
`minimum threshold set for each frequency bin. If the magnitude of a frequency bin was below
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. 8
`
`

`
`-9-
`
`the threshold, then the content of that frequency bin was considered to be undesired ambient
`
`noise rather than desired speech and was cancelled from the transmitted audio signal. Id. at 1:58-
`
`2:44, 3:24-45.
`
`The ’637 patent addressed the same problem, but professed to improve on the invention
`
`of the ’345 patent by reducing computational complexity and decreasing computation time.
`
`Exhibit 2 (’637 patent) at 2:25-67. In the ’637 invention, a digital input signal was divided into a
`
`number of frequency-limited time-domain sub-bands. Each sub-band was then processed by a
`
`noise processor to reduce the noise signal in each sub-band while maintaining the voice signal.
`
`The noise-processed bands were then recombined into a digital output signal. Id. at 3:1-67. The
`
`’637 patent explained that this technique could be implemented in a variety of devices, such as
`
`cellular phones, personal digital assistants, audio applications, automobile acoustics, headphones,
`
`and microphone arrays. Id. at 4:1-7. Either the ’637 invention or the ’345 invention “may be
`
`embodied as a computer program for driving a computer processor either installed as application
`
`software or as hardware.” Id. at 4:7-10; accord Exhibit 1 (’345 patent) at 4:16-19.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The asserted patents are directed to devices and methods for cancelling noise in audio
`
`signals. Exhibit 1 (’345 patent) at 1:19-21; Exhibit 2 (’637 patent) at 1:20-23; Exhibit 3 (’607
`
`patent) at 1:15-19. One of ordinary skill in this field of art would have been familiar with a
`
`variety of complex manipulations of electronic signals, including conversions to and from the
`
`time domain and frequency domain, adaptive filtering, and beam-splitting. The ’345 and ’607
`
`patents, for example, assume familiarity with the topics discussed in advanced research materials
`
`such as B.D. Van Veen & K.M. Buckley, Beamforming: A Versatile Approach to Spatial
`
`Filtering, IEEE ASSN Magazine, vol. 5, No. 2, at 4-24 (Apr. 1988); P.P. Vaidyanathan,
`
`Multirate Digital Filters, Filter Banks, Polyphase Networks, and Applications; A Tutorial, IEEE
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1020, p. 9
`
`

`
`-10-
`
`Proc., vol. 78, No. 1 (Jan. 1990); Rubiner et al., Digital Processing of Speech Signals at 130-35
`
`(Prentice Hall, 1978); and Ronald E. Crochiere, Multirate Digital Signal Processing (Prentice
`
`Hall Signal Processing Series).
`
`The Staff submits, therefore, that such a person would have been a well-educated
`
`professional. Such a person would have had, for example, a Master’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering or a related field with a specialty in digital signal processing, or, in the alternative, a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field with two to three years of practical
`
`experience with digital signal processing algorithms and systems. The Staff does not expect
`
`there to be significant disagreement among the parties as to the qualifications of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art during the relevant 1998-2000 time period.
`
`C. “Most Significant” Disputed Claim Terms
`
`Ground Rule 8.3 provides that “The parties shall . . . identify those terms whose
`
`construction will be most significant