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. IPR2017-00627
`U.S. Patent 6,363,345
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Table of Authorities .................................................................................................. ii
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`II.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’345 PATENT ........................................................... 3 
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`IN THE ART .................................................................................................. 8 
`A.  A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art ........................................ 8 
`B. 
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 9 
`IV.  THE ’627 PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER HELF .......... 10 
`Summary of Helf ................................................................................ 13 
`A. 
`B. 
`Independent Claim 38 Is Not Anticipated or Rendered Obvious
`by Helf ................................................................................................ 19 
`Petitioner’s multiple mapping of Helf and conclusory
`1.
` 
`analysis fails to meet the burden for institution of trial ........... 20 
`Neither of Helf’s “thresholds” identified by Petitioner
`meet the recitations of claim 38 ............................................... 27 
`Independent Claim 1 Is Not Anticipated or Rendered Obvious
`by Helf ................................................................................................ 32 
`D.  Dependent Claims 2 and 3 ................................................................. 33 
`E. 
`Dependent Claims 13 and 14 ............................................................. 34 
`F. 
`Dependent Claims 21 and 23 ............................................................. 35 
`THE ’627 PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS OVER HELF IN
`COMBINATION WITH ANY OTHER REFERENCE .............................. 37 
`VI.  THE ’626 PETITION OR ’627 PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED
`AS BEING REDUNDANT .......................................................................... 37 
`VII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 41 
`
`
`V. 
`
`2.
` 
`
`C. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Apple Inc. v. ZiiLabs Inc. Ltd., IPR2015-00963,
`Paper 8 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2015) ........................................................................ 11, 31
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586 (CCPA 1972) .......................................................... 12, 20
`
`In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ........................................................ 12, 20
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ....................... 12
`
`Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-00535,
`Paper 9 (PTAB Sep. 24, 2014) ........................................................................... 38
`
`Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. Autoalert, Inc., IPR2013-00225,
`Paper 15 (PTAB Oct. 10, 2013) .............................................................. 11, 27, 35
`
`Endo Pharmaceuticals v. Depomed, IPR2014-00652,
`Paper 12 (PTAB Sep. 29, 2014) ......................................................................... 12
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., IPR2013-00324,
`Paper 19 (PTAB Nov. 21, 2013) ........................................................................ 38
`
`LG Display, Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC., IPR2014-01094,
`Paper 10 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2015) .......................................................................... 27
`
`LG Display, Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC., IPR2014-01094,
`Paper 18 (PTAB April 9, 2015) .......................................................................... 27
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, IPR2015-00327,
`Paper 13 (PTAB Jul. 10, 2015) ........................................................................... 38
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003,
`Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) .....................................................................passim
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc., IPR2014-00436,
`Paper 17 (PTAB June 19, 2014) ......................................................................... 38
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............... 12, 20
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Oracle v. Clouding IP, LLC, IPR2013-00075,
`Paper 15 (PTAB June 13, 2013) ......................................................................... 41
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`Qualcomm Inc. v. ParkerVision, Inc., IPR2015-01819,
`Paper 8 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2016) ....................................................................... 10, 27
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................... 8
`
`TRW Automotive U.S., LLC v. Magna Electronics, Inc., IPR2015-00949,
`Paper 7 (PTAB Sep. 17, 2015) ............................................................................. 8
`
`Unilever, Inc. d/b/a Unilever v. Proctor & Gamble Co., IPR2014-00506,
`Paper 17 (PTAB Jul. 7, 2014) ............................................................................. 38
`
`United States v. Lanzotti, 205 F.3d 951, 957 (7th Cir. 2000) .................................. 12
`
`Vista Outdoor Operations v. Liberty Ammunition, LLC, IPR2016-00539,
`Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 3, 2016) .....................................................................passim
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ............................................................................................ 10, 23, 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .................................................................................................. 13, 38
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ....................................................................................................... 38
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ......................................................................................... 10, 23, 27
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ..................................................................................................... 27
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. 42.104 ................................................................................................ 10, 27
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......... 8, 10
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a), Andrea Electronics Corporation
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`(“Andrea” or “Patent Owner”) hereby submits the following Preliminary Response
`
`to the Petition assigned number IPR2017-00627 (“the ’627 Petition) seeking inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345 (“the ’345 Patent”). This filing is
`
`timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, as it is being filed within
`
`three months of the mailing date of the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to the
`
`Petition (Paper 5), mailed February 1, 2017.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple filed two IPR petitions against Andrea’s ’345 Patent. The first,
`
`assigned IPR2016-00626 (“the ’626 Petition”), was filed on January 9, 2017. This
`
`paper responds to the second ’627 Petition, which was also filed on the same day.
`
`In the ’627 Petition, Apple challenges claims of the ’345 Patent on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 21, 23, 38-41, and 43 as being anticipated by
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,550,924 of Helf et al. (Ex. 1010, “Helf”);
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 21, 23, 38-41, and 43 as being obvious over
`
`Helf;
`
`3.
`
`Claims 6, 8, 9, 12, 25, 42, and 46 as being obvious over Helf in view
`
`of an article by R. Martin, entitled “An efficient algorithm to estimate
`
`instantaneous SNR of speech signals” (Ex. 1006, “Martin”);
`
`1
`
`

`

`Claims 17-20 and 47 as being obvious over Helf in view of an article
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`4.
`
`by S. Boll, entitled “Suppression of acoustic noise in speech using
`
`spectral subtraction” (Ex. 1009, “Boll”);
`
`5.
`
`Claims 15 and 16 as being obvious over Helf in view of U.S. Patent
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`No. 5,706,395 of Arslan et al. (Ex. 1011, “Arslan”);
`
`Claim 24 as being obvious over Helf, Boll, and Arslan;
`
`Claim 22 as being obvious over Helf in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,459,683 of Uesugi et al. (Ex. 1015, “Uesugi”);
`
`8.
`
`Claims 44 and 45 as being obvious over Helf and Martin and further
`
`in view of Uesugi.
`
`First, the ’627 Petition should be denied because it fails to demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the primary reference that serves as the basis of every
`
`asserted anticipation or obviousness ground invalidates any claim of the ’345
`
`Patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`Second, the ’627 Petition should be denied because it presents “the same, or
`
`substantially the same, prior art and arguments” as the ’626 Petition. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 325(d). Across the two petitions, Apple relies on two primary references,
`
`presenting them as “distinct and separate alternatives.” Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v.
`
`Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 3 (Oct. 25, 2012).
`
`Grounds based on these primary references are therefore “horizontally redundant,”
`
`2
`
`

`

`and Apple makes no effort to explain how any one of the primary references is
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`better than the other. Id.
`
`Should the Board decide to institute a trial, Patent Owner reserves the right
`
`to present additional arguments as to the patentability of the claims for which trial
`
`is instituted.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’345 PATENT
`The ’345 Patent, entitled “System, Method and Apparatus for Cancelling
`
`Noise,” is generally directed to the processing of audio signals to cancel or reduce
`
`undesired noise present in those signals. See Ex. 1001 at 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. Id. at 1:60-64. The problem with this approach is that the
`
`thresholds used to distinguish non-speech intervals were inaccurate. Id. at 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 for each frequency bin. Id. at 3:28-31.
`
`In accordance with certain aspects of the ’345 Patent, an input audio signal
`
`can be digitized and conditioned in order to generate a frequency spectrum of the
`
`signal. Id. at 4:65-5:10. In one particularly preferred embodiment, the frequency
`
`spectrum is generated using a Fast Fourier Transform (“FFT”). Id. at 5:10-12. In
`
`3
`
`

`

`such aspects, the FFT can utilize a window of 512 points, consisting of 256 new
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`points and 256 points from the previous window. Id. at 4:65-5:1; see also id. at
`
`5:12-14 (noting that other lengths of FFT samples such as 256 or 1024 can be
`
`used). Before applying the FFT, a shading window can be applied “to smooth
`
`transients between two processed blocks” and “to reduce the side lobes in the
`
`frequency domain and hence prevent the masking of low energy tonals by high
`
`energy side lobes.” Id. at 5:4-10. “The shaded results are converted to the
`
`frequency domain through an FFT (Fast Fourier Transform).” Id. at 5:10-12.
`
`Although the FFT is said to be a preferred embodiment, the ’345 Patent also
`
`contemplates that “other transforms may be applied to the present invention to
`
`obtain the spectral noise signal.” Id. at 5:30-33.
`
`Again with reference to the preferred embodiment of the ’345 Patent
`
`depicted in FIG. 2, the frequency bins are sent through the noise processing block,
`
`where the magnitude of each frequency bin can be estimated:
`
`FIG. 2 is a detailed description of the noise processing block
`200(112). First, each frequency bin(n) 202 magnitude is estimated.
`The straight forward approach is to estimate the magnitude by
`calculating:
`
`Y(n) = ((Real(n))2 + (Imag(n))2)-2
`In order to save processing time and complexity the signal magnitude
`(Y) is estimated by an estimator 204 using an approximation formula
`instead:
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`Y(n) = Max[|Real(n),Imag(n)|] + 0.4*Min[|Real(n),Imag(n)|]
`In order to reduce the instability of the spectral estimation, which
`typically plagues the FFT Process (ref[2] Digital Signal Processing,
`Oppenheim Schafer, Prentice Hall P. 542545), the present invention
`implements a 2D smoothing process. Each bin is replaced with the
`average of its value and the two neighboring bins’ value (of the same
`time frame) by a first averager 206. In addition, the smoothed value
`of each smoothed bin is further smoothed by a second averager 208
`using a time exponential average with a time constant of 0.7 (which is
`the equivalent of averaging over 3 time frames).
`
`Id. at 5:34-54.
`
`The 2-D smoothed magnitude value can then be used by the “noise
`
`estimation processor” to set a separate adaptive threshold for each frequency bin.
`
`Id. at 5:55-58 and 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.
`
`Id. at 6:14-19 (emphasis added).
`
`In various aspects, the noise estimation process uses a “current minimum
`
`value” to set the threshold. Id. at 6:46-48. The current minimum value is set by
`
`setting it to the minimum magnitude value over a period of time. Id. at 6:34-39.
`
`5
`
`

`

`The current minimum value is refreshed with a future minimum value at the
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`beginning of each period. Id. at 6:34-39. This process “ensures a tight and quick
`
`estimation of the noise value . . . while preventing [] too high an estimation of the
`
`noise.” Id. at 6:42-45.
`
`The magnitude of each signal is continuously compared to the threshold in
`
`order to estimate the level of noise in each frequency bin. Id. at 6:49-53. If the
`
`magnitude of the frequency bin is less than the threshold, the noise estimate is
`
`updated using that magnitude value. Id. at 6:48-52. The subtraction processor
`
`uses subtraction or filter multiplication to subtract the estimated noise from the
`
`frequency bin. Id. at 6:58-7:33.
`
`In accordance with various aspects of the above exemplary teachings, the
`
`challenged claims of the ’345 Patent are directed to apparatuses and methods for
`
`cancelling noise. Independent claim 1, for example, recites:
`
`1.
`
`An apparatus for canceling noise, comprising:
`an input for inputting an audio signal which includes a noise
`signal;
`a frequency spectrum generator for generating the frequency
`spectrum of said audio signal thereby generating frequency bins of
`said audio signal; and
`a threshold detector for setting a threshold for each frequency
`bin using a noise estimation process and for detecting for each
`frequency bin whether the magnitude of the frequency bin is less than
`
`6
`
`

`

`the corresponding threshold, thereby detecting the position of noise
`elements for each frequency bin.
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`Id. at 9:35-46. Challenged claims 2-25, which depend directly or indirectly from
`
`claim 1, recite various additional characteristics of the noise canceling apparatus
`
`recited in claim 1.
`
`Independent claim 38 recites a method for canceling noise from an audio
`
`signal, which in relevant aspects substantially tracks the limitations of the
`
`apparatus of claim 1 with the additional recitation of the final “subtraction” step:
`
`38. A method for driving a computer processor for generating a
`noise canceling signal for canceling noise from an audio signal
`representing audible sound including a noise signal representing
`audible noise, said method comprising the steps of:
`inputting said audio signal which includes said noise signal;
`generating the frequency spectrum of said audio signal thereby
`generating frequency bins of said audio signal;
`setting a threshold for each frequency bin using a noise
`estimation process;
`detecting for each frequency bin whether the magnitude of the
`frequency bin is less than the corresponding threshold, thereby
`detecting the position of noise elements for each frequency bin; and
`subtracting said noise elements detected in said step of
`detecting from said audio signal to produce an audio signal
`representing said audible sound substantially without said audible
`noise.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Id. at 12:4-23. Challenged claims 39-47, which depend directly or indirectly from
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`claim 38, recite various additional characteristics of the method recited in claim 38.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN
`THE ART
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
`
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under this standard,
`
`a claim term is given its ordinary and customary meaning as it would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007); TRW Automotive U.S., LLC v. Magna
`
`Electronics, Inc., IPR2015-00949, Paper 7 at 9 (Sep. 17, 2015).
`
`A. A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art
`Apple alleges that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`’345 Patent at the time of the invention would have had “a good working
`
`knowledge of digital signal processing techniques and their applications” gained
`
`through “an undergraduate education in electrical engineering or a comparable
`
`field, in combination with either a graduate degree (or two years of graduate work)
`
`in electrical engineering or a comparable field, or through two years of practical
`
`work experience, where such graduate education or work experience focused on or
`
`involved the use of digital signal processing techniques.” ’627 Petition at 12.
`
`8
`
`

`

`For the purposes of this paper, Patent Owner applies Apple’s proposed
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`standard without prejudice. Should a trial be instituted, Patent Owner reserves the
`
`right to present evidence and arguments as to the above definition or an alternative
`
`definition as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`Apple addresses the construction of the following claim terms: “magnitude”
`
`(independent claims 1 and 38); “frequency spectrum generator”/ “generating the
`
`frequency spectrum” (claims 1 and 38); “threshold detector for setting a threshold
`
`… and for detecting” (claim 1); “generating a noise canceling signal for canceling
`
`noise” (claim 38); “current minimum value” (dependent claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and
`
`39); and “future minimum value” (dependent claims 4-7, 9, and 39-41).1
`
`For purposes of this paper, Andrea applies Apple’s proposed constructions
`
`without prejudice, but reserves its rights to present evidence and arguments as to
`
`the proper construction of the claim terms within the meaning of the ’345 Patent in
`
`this or any other proceeding.
`
`
`1 With respect to the remaining claim terms, Apple purportedly relies on its
`
`proffered declarant in applying the “ordinary meaning of the words being used in
`
`those claims from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of
`
`the specification.” See e.g., ’627 Petition at 12 and Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 90, 93.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IV. THE ’627 PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER HELF
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`Apple alleges that claims 1-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 21, 23, 38-41, and 43 are
`
`anticipated by Helf. Alternatively, Apple alleges that these same claims are
`
`obvious over Helf. Trial should not be instituted with respect to either proposed
`
`ground of invalidity based solely on Helf, at least because Apple has failed to
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Helf discloses “setting a threshold for
`
`each frequency bin using a noise estimation process,” and utilizing this same
`
`threshold, “detecting for each frequency bin whether the magnitude of the
`
`frequency bin is less than the corresponding threshold, thereby detecting the
`
`position of noise elements for each frequency bin,” as required by independent
`
`claims 1 and 38.
`
`A petitioner is required to set forth its challenges to each claim “with
`
`particularity” and with a “detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4),(5). The Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide suggests that a petitioner should “avoid submitting a
`
`repository of all the information that a judge could possibly consider, and instead
`
`focus on concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily
`
`identifiable evidence of record.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763. In quoting these statutes
`
`and regulations, the Board denied institution in Qualcomm Inc. v. ParkerVision,
`
`Inc., finding that “[petitioner] appears to set forth at least three plausible iterations
`
`10
`
`

`

`of [three prior art references], each of which purportedly teaches the [same
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`recitations of the challenged independent claim]. . .”:
`
`We, therefore, are left to speculate as to which of these three iterations
`renders obvious the “first control signal” and “second control signal,”
`as recited in independent claim 88. Formulating its obviousness
`evaluation in this manner weighs in favor of determining that
`[petitioner] has not satisfied the “reasonable likelihood” threshold
`standard for instituting an inter partes review as to this asserted
`ground.
`
`IPR2015-01819, Paper 8 at 27-28 (Mar. 8, 2016).
`
`Indeed, it is a petitioner’s burden “to explain specific evidence that support
`
`its arguments, not the Board’s responsibility to search the record and piece together
`
`what may support Petitioner’s arguments.” Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v.
`
`Autoalert, Inc., IPR2013-00225, Paper 15 at 4 (Oct. 10, 2013). Similarly, in
`
`denying institution in Apple Inc. v. ZiiLabs Inc. Ltd., the Board found that a
`
`challenger’s reliance on multiple disclosures in the primary prior art reference
`
`combined with a general assertion that the reference accounts for all the claimed
`
`features of a particular method step failed to “provide a credible or sufficient
`
`explanation as to how one of ordinary skill in the art might combine these disparate
`
`disclosures to arrive at [the method step].” IPR2015-00963, Paper 8 at 17 (Oct. 1,
`
`2015) (“We decline to shoulder [petitioner’s] burden and, as a result, we will not
`
`attempt to fit the disparate disclosures from McCormack together into a coherent
`
`11
`
`

`

`explanation to supplement [petitioner’s] insufficient arguments presented in its
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`Petition”; citing United States v. Lanzotti, 205 F.3d 951, 957 (7th Cir. 2000)).
`
`To establish anticipation, a petitioner must demonstrate that a prior art
`
`reference shows every element of the claimed invention identically, in the same
`
`relationship as in the claim. Vista Outdoor Operations LLC v. Liberty
`
`Ammunition, LLC, IPR2016-00539, Paper 9 at 12 (Aug. 3, 2016) (citing In re
`
`Bond, 910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “[U]nless a reference discloses within the
`
`four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of
`
`the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it
`
`cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed, and thus, cannot
`
`anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d
`
`1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586 (CCPA 1972).
`
`Likewise, “[t]o establish obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim
`
`limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art.” Endo Pharmaceuticals v.
`
`Depomed, IPR2014-00652, Paper 12 at 10 (Sep. 29, 2014) (citing CFMT, Inc. v.
`
`Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`Under either ground based on Helf alone, Apple has failed to demonstrate
`
`that Helf discloses an apparatus and method arranged in the same way as required
`
`by independent claims 1 and 38. Instead, as discussed in detail below, the ’627
`
`Petition identifies disparate teachings of Helf that invoke various iterations of a
`
`12
`
`

`

`“threshold” and asks the Board to speculate as to which of these iterations might
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`best meet the recited elements as they are arranged in the claims. In fact, neither
`
`iteration does.
`
`Trial in the present proceeding should therefore be denied. Apple’s
`
`conclusory analysis and arbitrary citation to multiple, disparate portions of Helf in
`
`the hopes that the Board will take the initiative to determine that one of Helf’s
`
`purported “thresholds” (or both in combination) is within the challenged claims’
`
`recitations fails to meet the burden for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`A.
`Summary of Helf
`Helf is directed to a system that takes advantage of properties of human
`
`audio perception to “perform spectral and time masking to reduce perceived
`
`loudness of noise added to the speech signal.” Ex. 1010 at Abstract. “This
`
`approach differs from other approaches, for example, those in which the goal is to
`
`minimize the mean-squared-error between the speech component by itself (speech-
`
`without-noise) and the processed speech output of the suppression system.” Id. at
`
`3:12-16. Generally, Helf provides that a “signal is divided temporally into blocks
`
`which are then passed through notch filters to remove narrow frequency band
`
`components of the noise.” Id. at Abstract. An FFT is performed on the block,
`
`after which each frequency band’s gain function is adjusted to modify the
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`magnitude of the spectral components. See id. An inverse FFT converts the signal
`
`from the frequency domain back into the time domain for output. See id.
`
`FIG. 1 of Helf (reproduced below) is a “block diagram of a noise
`
`suppression system according to the invention.” Id. at 2:45-46. As shown in FIG.
`
`1, the input signal (1) is first fed through a framer block (2) to break the input
`
`signal into 20 millisecond (ms) frames to which a notch filter (4) is applied to
`
`remove narrow band noise components. See id. at 3:53-63. To each filtered 20-ms
`
`frame, a portion of the previous frame (i.e., the last 12 ms) is then added and a FFT
`
`(8) is taken to produce a component frequency spectrum. The spectral components
`
`are then fed to a background noise estimator (20) “to develop an estimate for each
`
`frequency component of the FFT, the average energy magnitude due to the
`
`background noise.” Id. at 6:25-28. “The background noise estimator continually
`
`monitors the signal/noise environment, updating estimates of the background noise
`
`automatically in response to, for example, air conditioning fans turning off and on,
`
`etc. Two approaches are used, with the results of one or the other approach used in
`
`a particular situation. The first approach is more accurate, but requires one second
`
`intervals of solely background noise. The second approach is less accurate, but
`
`develops background noise estimates in 10 seconds under any conditions.” Id. at
`
`6:30-39. In particular, the background noise estimator (20) includes a stationary
`
`estimator (24) (the above-referenced “first approach”) and a running minimum
`
`14
`
`

`

`estimator (22) (the above-referenced “second approach”), which operate on the
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`spectral components in parallel.
`
`
`The stationary estimator (24) “look[s] for long sequences of frames where
`
`the spectral shape in each frame is very similar to that of the other frames.
`
`Presumably, this condition can only arise if the human in the room is silent and the
`
`constant background noise due to fans and/or circuit noise is the primary source of
`
`the signal.” Id. at 6:44-50. Specifically, the stationary estimator (24) classifies
`
`each 20-ms frame as a noise frame or a signal frame by comparing the spectral
`
`shape of the current frame to that of the previous frames. See id. at 6:61-7:45. “If
`
`fifty consecutive noise-classified frames occur in a row,” the estimator (24)
`
`generates background noise magnitude estimates (Bk) for each frequency (k) by
`
`15
`
`

`

`averaging energies for each frequency of the center 32 frames from the last second
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`of input (i.e., the last fifty 20-ms frames). Id. at 7:46-61.
`
`Noise background magnitude estimates (Mk) for each frequency (k) are also
`
`determined in parallel by the running minimum estimator (22). See id. at FIG. 1,
`
`6:34-36, 8:9-60. Estimates (Mk) from the running minimum estimator (22) are
`
`generally utilized in “instances when either the speech signal is never absent for
`
`more than a second or the background noise itself is never constant in spectral
`
`shape, so that the stationary estimator 24 (described above) will never produce
`
`noise background estimates.” Id. at 8:10-15. To generate the noise background
`
`magnitude estimates (Mk), the running minimum estimator (22) identifies using
`
`equation (10) the 160-ms window (i.e., eight consecutive 20-ms frames) that
`
`minimizes the energy for each frequency over the last ten seconds of the input
`
`signal. Id. at 8:10-29. “[I]n general, the fk that minimizes equation (10) will take
`
`on different values for different frequency components, k.” Id. at 8:29-32.
`
`As shown in FIG. 1, the comparator (28) receives the noise background
`
`magnitude estimates (Bk and Mk) from both the stationary estimator (24) and the
`
`running minimum estimator (22) to determine which estimate to use for processing
`
`by Helf’s noise suppression spectral modifier (30). Helf provides that the values
`
`produced by the running minimum estimator (22) will be utilized as the noise
`
`background estimate if: i) the background noise estimates (Bk) from the stationary
`
`16
`
`

`

`estimator (24) have not been updated in more than ten seconds; and ii) the
`
`IPR2017-00627
`Patent 6,363,345
`
`
`summation (D) of the difference between the past background noise estimates (i.e.,
`
`Nk, which is either a previous Bk or Mk) and the background noise estimates (Mk)
`
`from the running minimum estimator (22) are greater than a threshold. See id. at
`
`8:33-60.
`
`Once the comparator (28) provides the background noise estimate (now
`
`designated Ck) to the noise suppression spectral modifier (30), “the current frame’s
`
`spectra must be compared to the background noise estimate’s spectra, and on the
`
`basis of this comparison, attenuation must be derived for each frequency
`
`component of the current frame’s FFT in an attempt to reduce the perception of
`
`noise in the output signal.” Id. a