IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
` SAINT LAWRENCE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent 6,807,524
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`
`SAINT LAWRENCE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC’S PATENT OWNER
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Speech Processing ..........................................................................................6
`
`The ’524 Patent: Bruno Bessette, Redwan Salami, and Roch Lefebvre Invent
`A New Perceptual Weighting Device Adapted To Wideband Signals To
`Achieve A High Quality Reconstructed Signal .............................................................9
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW ..............12
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. ..................................................................................................13
`
`a.
`
`Wideband speech signal (independent claims 1, 8, 15, 29, and 36). ...............14
`
`V. THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART. .........................................................16
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Salami (Ex. 1008). ...........................................................................................17
`
`Kroon (Exhibit 1005). ......................................................................................20
`
`Makamura (Exhibit 1021). ...............................................................................23
`
`Lim (Exhibit 1014). .........................................................................................26
`
`VII. The Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That It Is Reasonably Likely To Prevail
`On Any Of Its Proposed Obviousness Rejections .......................................................29
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Set Forth A Proper Obviousness Analysis ...........................30
`
`The Prior Art Does Not Teach All Of The Limitations Of The Challenged
`Independent Claims. ....................................................................................................32
`
`The Combination Of Salami and Kroon Would Not Have Taught “a signal
`preemphasis filter responsive to the wideband speech signal for enhancing
`a high frequency content of the wideband speech signal to thereby produce
`a preemphasised signal,” Or “a perceptual weighting filter, responsive to
`said preemphasised signal and said synthesis filter coefficients, for
`filtering said preemphasised signal in relation to said synthesis filter
`coefficients to thereby produce said perceptually weighted signal,” As
`Recited By Independent Claim 1 And As Similarly Recited In Each Of
`The Other Challenged Independent Claims (8, 15, 29, and 36). ...........................32
`
`2.
`
`The Combination Of Salami and Kroon Would Not Have Taught A
`“perceptual weighting filter having a transfer function with fixed
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`denominator whereby weighting of said wideband speech signal in a
`formant region is substantially decoupled from a spectral tilt of said
`wideband speech signal,” As Recited By Independent Claim 1 And As
`Similarly Recited In Each Of The Other Challenged Independent Claims
`(8, 15, 29, and 36). .................................................................................................37
`
`The Combination Of Salami and Kroon Would Not Have Taught A “pitch
`codebook search device responsive to said perceptually weighted signal
`for producing pitch codebook parameters and an innovative search target
`vector,” As Recited By Independent Claim 15. .....................................................43
`
`The Combination Of Salami and Kroon Would Not Have Taught “an
`innovative codebook search device, responsive to said synthesis filter
`coefficients and to said innovative search target vector, for producing
`innovative codebook parameters,” As Recited By Independent Claim 15. ...........45
`
`The Combination Of Salami and Kroon Would Not Have Taught “a signal
`forming device for producing an encoded wideband speech signal
`comprising said pitch codebook parameters, said innovative codebook
`parameters, and said synthesis filter coefficients” As Recited By
`Independent Claim 15. ...........................................................................................45
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The Combination Of Salami and Kroon Would Not Have Taught
`Additional Limitations Of Independent Claims 29 and 36. ...................................46
`
`C.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Combined The Teachings Of Salami and Kroon
`To Achieve The Invention Recited In Any Of Independent Claims 1, 8, 15,
`29, and 36 And Reasonably Expect Success. ..............................................................47
`
`D.
`
`The Dependent Claims Would Not Have Been Obvious.............................................51
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Secondary References Do Not Teach The Limitations That Are
`Missing From The Primary Reference ...................................................................51
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Combined The Teachings Of Salami, Kroon
`and Makamura To Achieve The Invention Recited In Any Of The
`Challenged Dependent Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 30, 31, 37, And 38 And
`Reasonably Expect Success. ..................................................................................52
`
`The Combination of Salami, Kroon, and Makamura Would Not Have
`Taught “A perceptual weighting device … wherein said signal pre-
`emphasis filter has a transfer function of the form: P(z) = 1 – μz-1 wherein
`μ is a pre-emphasis factor having a value located between 0 and 1,” As
`Recited In Claim 2 And As Similarly Recited In Claim 9. ....................................55
`
`4.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Combined The Teachings Of Salami, Kroon,
`Lim And The Alleged APA To Achieve The Invention Recited In Any Of
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`The Challenged Dependent Claims 4-6, 11-14, 18-21, 32-35, 39, 40 And
`42 And Reasonably Expect Success. .....................................................................55
`
`VIII. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................57
`
`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Number Description
`
`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`P. Mermelstein, “G.722, A new CCITT Coding Standard
`for Digital Transmission of Wideband Audio Signals,”
`IEEE Comm. Mag., Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 8-15, Jan. 1988.
`
`Fuemmeler et. al, “Techniques for the Regeneration of
`Wideband Speech from Narrowband Speech,” EURASIP
`Journal on Applied Signal Processing 2001:0, 1-9 (Sep.
`2001).
`
`C.H. Ritz et. al., “Lossless Wideband Speech Coding,”
`10th Australian Int’l. Conference on Speech Science &
`Technology, p. 249 (Dec. 2004).
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Gottesman
`
`“Discrete-Time Signal Processing,” by Alan V.
`Oppenheim, Ronald W. Schafer
`
`
`https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/math/rando
`m-numbers-with-specific-mean-and-variance.html
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Johnson
`
`O. Gottesman and A. Gersho, “Enhanced Waveform
`Interpolative Coding at Low Bit Rate,” in IEEE
`Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, vol. 9,
`November 2001, pp. 786-798
`
`O. Gottesman and A. Gersho, “Enhancing Waveform
`Interpolative Coding with Weighted REW Parametric
`Quantization,” in IEEE Workshop on Speech Coding
`Proceedings, pp. 50-52, September 2000, Wisconsin, USA
`
`O. Gottesman and A. Gersho, “High Quality Enhanced
`Waveform Interpolative Coding at 2.8 kbps,” in Proc.
`IEEE ICASSP’2000, vol. III, pp. 1363-1366, June 5-9,
`2000, Istanbul, Turkey.
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`O. Gottesman and A. Gersho, “Enhanced Analysis-by-
`Synthesis Waveform Interpolative Coding at 4 kbps,”
`EUROSPEECH’99, pp. 1443-1446, 1999, Hungary
`
`O. Gottesman and A. Gersho, “Enhanced Waveform
`Interpolative Coding at 4 kbps,” IEEE Workshop on
`Speech Coding Proceedings, pp. 90-92, 1999, Finland
`
`O. Gottesman, “Dispersion Phase Vector Quantization
`For Enhancement of Waveform Interpolative Coder,”
`IEEE ICASSP’99, vol. 1, pp. 269-272, 1999
`
`O. Gottesman and Y. Shoham, “Real-Time
`Implementation of High Quality 32 kbps Wideband
`Speech LD-CELP Coder,” EUROSPEECH’93, 1993
`
`Oded Gottesman, “Redundant compression of techniques
`for transmitting data over degraded communication links
`and/or storing data on media subject to degradation,”
`U.S. Patent 6,614,370
`
`Oded Gottesman, “Enhanced waveform interpolative
`coder,” U.S. Patent 7,643,996
`
`Oded Gottesman and Allen Gersho, “REW parametric
`vector quantization and dual-predictive SEW vector
`quantization for waveform interpolative coding”, U.S.
`Patent 7,584,095
`
`Oded Gottesman and Allen Gersho, “REW parametric
`vector quantization and dual-predictive SEW vector
`quantization for waveform interpolative coding”, U.S.
`Patent 7,010,482
`
`2019
`
`Rabiner and Schafer, “Digital Processing Of Speech
`Signals,” Prentice Hall Inc., 1978.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
` The Board should deny the present request for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,807,524 (“the ’524 patent”) because there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail at trial with respect to at least one
`
`claim of the ’524 patent for three separate and independent reasons.
`
`First, each of the Petitioner’s proposed grounds of rejection is missing
`
`one or more limitations of the claims of the ‘524 patent.1 For example, the
`
`combination of Salami and Kroon (i.e., the sole combination asserted against
`
`each of the challenged independent claims) would not have taught or suggested
`
`(i) “a signal preemphasis filter responsive to the wideband speech signal for
`
`enhancing a high frequency content of the wideband speech signal to thereby
`
`produce a pre-emphasized signal,” (ii) “a synthesis filter calculator responsive
`
`to sadi preemphasized signal for producing synthesis filter coefficients,” (iii) “a
`
`perceptual weighting filter, responsive to said pre-emphasized signal and said
`
`synthesis filter coefficients, for filtering said preemphasized signal in relation to
`
`said synthesis filter coefficients to thereby produce said perceptually weighted
`
`signal,” and (iv) “said perceptual weighting filter having a transfer function
`
`with fixed denominator,” as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly
`
`
`1 Infra, §§ V.A.2 and V.B.2-8.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`recited in each of the other challenged independent claims (i.e., claims 1, 8, 15,
`
`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`29, and 36).
`
`Indeed, the teachings of Salami relied upon by Petitioner are clearly
`
`deficient with respect to the claimed invention of the ‘524 patent because they
`
`are directed to a decoder while each of the independent claims of the ‘524
`
`patent is directed to an encoder. In other words, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (POSITA) would have understood that many of the claim limitations
`
`must necessarily be absent from Salami’s decoder because they simply don’t
`
`belong in a decoder; the claim limitations instead belong in an encoder.
`
`Moreover, the teachings of the other reference, Kroon, are also deficient
`
`because they are directed to processing narrowband signals, while each of the
`
`independent claims of the ‘524 patent is directed to processing wideband
`
`signals. For these reason alone, there is not a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`Petitioner will prevail at trial with respect to at least one claim of the ’521
`
`patent.
`
`Second, the Petitioner did not present any objective evidence as to why
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the various
`
`teachings of entirely different approaches to achieve the particular combination
`
`of a signal preemphasis filter, a synthesis filter calculator, and a perceptual
`
`weighting filter each having particular filters as required by all of the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`challenged independent claims of the ‘524 patent. For example, the Petitioner
`
`did not demonstrate that a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings
`
`of Salami and Kroon to achieve the claimed invention of the ‘521 patent.
`
`Salami teaches a wideband, algebraic codebook shaping matrix while Kroon
`
`teaches a low-order combined filter for narrowband. A POSITA would not
`
`have been motivated to combine the teachings of such a low-order combined
`
`filter for narrowband like Kroon with the teachings of a wideband system like
`
`Salami.
`
`Thus, the Petitioner did not show that a “skilled artisan would have been
`
`motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the
`
`claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so.”2 The Board has consistently declined to
`
`institute proposed grounds of rejections in IPR proceedings when the Petition
`
`fails to identify any objective evidence such as experimental data, tending to
`
`establish that two different structures can be combined to achieve the claimed
`
`
`2 OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`invention with a reasonable expectation of success.3 Here, the Petitioner did
`
`not set forth any such objective evidence.4 For this additional reason, there is
`
`not a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail at trial with respect
`
`to at least one claim of the ’524 patent.
`
`Third, the Petitioner neglected to follow the legal framework for an
`
`obviousness analysis set forth long ago by the Supreme Court.5 That
`
`framework requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter
`
`and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art. The Board has previously
`
`warned that failure to identify differences between the cited art and the claims
`
`is a basis for denying a petition:
`
`
`3 Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Decision Not To
`
`Institute, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103).
`
`4 See e.g., Petition, pp. 20-54.
`
`5 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); see
`
`also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 399 (2007) (“While the sequence
`
`of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham]
`
`factors define the controlling inquiry.”)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`A petitioner who does not state the differences between
`
`a challenged claim and the prior art, and relies instead on the
`
`Patent Owner and the Board to determine those differences based
`
`on the rest of the submission in the petition risks having the
`
`corresponding ground of obviousness not included for trial for
`
`failing to adequately state a claim for relief. 6
`
`The Petitioner ignored the Board’s warning by failing to identify the
`
`differences between the challenged claims and the prior art. That is, the
`
`Petitioner failed to identify the claim limitations that it believed are missing
`
`from the primary reference (i.e., Salami) and are instead taught by the
`
`secondary references (e.g., Kroon).7 Rather, Petitioner provided a description
`
`of each reference followed by a conclusory statement that the references taught
`
`certain claim limitations, leaving the Board to figure out whether the primary
`
`or secondary reference best teaches the claim limitation.8 Under this
`
`circumstance, it would be “inappropriate for the Board to take the side of the
`
`
`6 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CMB-2012-00003, paper 7 at 2 – 3.
`
`7 Petition, pp. 20-54.
`
`8 Id.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`Petitioner to salvage an inadequately expressed ground …”9 For this
`
`additional reason, inter partes review based on obviousness should be denied.10
`
`For the reasons mentioned above as explained more fully below, the
`
`Petitioner failed to show that it is reasonably likely to prevail on any proposed
`
`ground. Accordingly, the Board should deny the Petition.
`
`
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A. Prior Art Speech Processing
`
`As discussed in the background of the ’524 patent, there is a trade-off in
`
`speech processing between the quality of a speech signal and the bit rate of the
`
`speech signal.11 “One of the best prior art techniques capable of achieving a
`
`good quality/bit rate trade-off is the so-called Code Excited Linear Prediction
`
`(CELP) technique.”12 In CELP, a sampled speech signal is processed in
`
`
`9 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CBM-2012-00003, paper 7 at 2 – 3; paper
`
`8 at 14-15.
`
`10 See infra, § VI.B.1.
`
`11 Exhibit 1001, ‘524 patent, col. 1, ll. 33-40.
`
`12 Id. at col. 1, ll. 41-43.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`successive blocks of a predetermined number of samples called frames.13 The
`
`frames are divided into smaller blocks called subframes.14 An excitation signal
`
`consisting of a past excitation component called an adaptive codebook and an
`
`innovative or fixed codebook is determined for each subframe.15 “This
`
`excitation signal is transmitted and used at the decoder as the input of the LP
`
`synthesis filter in order to obtain the synthesized speech.”16
`
`As explained by the ’521 patent, “[t]he CELP model has been very
`
`successful in encoding telephone band sound signals.”17 But “[t]he demand for
`
`efficient digital wideband speech/audio encoding techniques with a good
`
`subjective quality/bit rate trade-off is increasing for numerous applications
`
`such as audio/video teleconferencing, multimedia, and wireless applications,
`
`as well as Internet and packet network applications.”18 And “[s]ome
`
`
`13 Id. at col. 1, ll. 43-48.
`
`14 Id. at col. 1, ll. 48-50.
`
`15 Id. at col. 1, ll. 51-55.
`
`16 Id. at col. 1, ll. 55-57.
`
`17 Id. at col. 2, ll. 8-9.
`
`18 Id. at col. 1, ll. 19-23.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`difficulties arise when applying the telephone-band optimized CELP model to
`
`wideband signals.”19 For example, “[w]ideband signals exhibit a much wider
`
`dynamic range compared to telephone-band signals, which results in precision
`
`problems when a fixed-point implementation of the algorithm is required
`
`(which is essential in wireless applications).”20
`
`In addition, “the CELP model will often spend most of its encoding bits
`
`on the low-frequency region, which usually has higher energy contents,
`
`resulting in a low-pass output signal.”21 “In CELP-type encoders, the
`
`optimum pitch and innovative parameters are searched by minimizing the
`
`mean squared error between the input speech and synthesized speech in a
`
`perceptually weighted domain.”22 “In analysis-by-synthesis (AbS) coders,
`
`analysis show that the quantization error is weighted by the inverse of the
`
`weighting filter, W−1(z), which exhibits some of the formant structure in the
`
`
`19 Id. at col. 2, ll. 17-18.
`
`20 Id. at col. 2, ll. 18-22.
`
`21 Id. at col. 2, ll. 23-26.
`
`22 Id. at col. 2, ll. 31-34.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`input signal.”23 But “it was found that this filter is not suitable for efficient
`
`perceptual weighting when it was applied to wideband signals. It was found
`
`that this filter has inherent limitations in modelling the formant structure and
`
`the required spectral tilt concurrently.”24 Accordingly, it is an object of the
`
`invention of the ‘524 patent “to provide a perceptual weighting device and
`
`method adapted to wideband signals, using a modified perceptual weighting
`
`filter to obtain a high quality reconstructed signal, these device and method
`
`enabling fixed point algorithmic implementation.”25
`
`
`
`B. The ’524 Patent: Bruno Bessette, Redwan Salami, and Roch Lefebvre
`Invent A New Perceptual Weighting Device Adapted To Wideband
`Signals To Achieve A High Quality Reconstructed Signal
`
`The `524 Patent addresses the deficiencies of the prior art by reducing
`
`the complexity of the applied filter to ensure that the noise shaping process
`
`does not introduce too much distortion in the low frequencies. A pre-emphasis
`
`filter (103) is introduced at the input of the encoder, the LP filter A(z) is
`
`computed based on the preemphasized speech s(n), and a modified weighting
`
`
`23 Id. at col. 2, ll. 40-43.
`
`24 Id. at col. 2, ll. 51-52.
`
`25 Id. at col. 2, ll. 59-63.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`filter W(z) having a fixed denominator is used. Specifically, the improved
`
`encoder disclosed in the `524 Patent applies the steps described below to each
`
`block of wideband speech signal that is to be encoded. “A pre-emphasis filter
`
`(103) is applied to enhance the high frequency contents and reduce the
`
`dynamic range (i.e., reduce spectral dynamics) of the input signal.” Ex. 1001,
`
`‘524 patent, col. 8, ll. 9-10. The pre-emphasis filter has the following transfer
`
`function (where μ is between 0 and 1):
`
`(𝑧)=1−𝜇𝑧−1
`
`Id. at col. 8, ll. 103. The coefficients of the LP synthesis filter A(z) are then
`
`determined in the calculator module (104) based on the pre-emphasized speech
`
`signal (S) from the pre-emphasis filter (103). Id. at col. 8, ll. 37-41.
`
`A new perceptual weighting filter (105) with a fixed denominator is
`
`applied to the pre-emphasized signal from the pre-emphasis filter (103). The
`
`new perceptual weighting filter (105) has a transfer function as follows:
`
`
`
`Id. at col. 9, ll. 37-45. The transfer function W(z) has a fixed denominator
`
`(independent of the time-varying LP filter A(z)). Id. Therefore, the transfer
`
`function W(z) of the perceptual weighting filter (105) substantially decouples
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`the formant weighting from the spectral tilt of the signal. Id. There is not a
`
`complete decoupling of formant weighting from the spectral tilt of the signal
`
`because the numerator is still dependent on the LP filter A(z). Id.
`
`The de-emphasis filter on the decoder side D(z) is defined as:
`
`Id. at col. 16, ll. 13-22. Accordingly, with 𝛾2 =𝜇, the total coding noise will have
`
`
`
`the shape:
`
`Because of the relationship between D(z) and P(z), the total coding noise
`
`
`
`is:
`
`
`Because the fixed denominator of the perceptual weighting filter is equal
`
`to the pre-emphasis filter, it cancels out with the de-emphasis filter when
`
`considering the noise shaping of the encoder/decoder pair.
`
`Accordingly, the improved solution proposed by the `524 Patent results
`
`in a decoupling of the de-emphasis filter D(z) from the coding noise shaping.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Additionally, it reduces the complexity of the perceptual weighting filter W(z)
`
`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`since it uses the shape:
`
` (16th order at numerator and 1st
`
`order at denominator) instead of 𝑊(𝑧) = 𝐴(𝑧/𝛾1) / 𝐴(𝑧/𝛾2) (16th order at
`
`numerator and 16th order at denominator). Further, since the LP filter A(z) is
`
`calculated on the pre-emphasized speech signal, the spectral shape of the total
`
`coding noise
`
`has less predominance in the low frequencies which properly
`
`shapes the coding noise.
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`REVIEW
`
`For the Board’s convenience, below is a summary (as understood by
`
`Patent Owner) of the claim rejections proposed by the Petitioner:
`
`1. Ground 1: Claims 1, 8, 15, 29, and 36 are alleged to be obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Salami in view of Kroon;
`
`2. Ground 2: Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 30, 31, 37, and 38 are alleged
`
`to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Salami, Kroon, and
`
`Makamura;
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`3. Ground 3: Claims 6, 13, 20, 34, and 41 are alleged to be obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Salami, Kroon, Lim, and the
`
`alleged admitted prior art (APA); and
`
`4. Ground 4: Claims 4-5, 11-12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 32, 33, 35, 39, 40, and
`
`42 are alleged to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Salami,
`
`Kroon, Lim, the APA, and Madamura.
`
`
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.
`
`Patent Owner opposes the Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions.
`
`The Petitioner’s proposed constructions generally ignore the context of the
`
`terms within the claim.
`
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Additionally, the
`
`“appropriate context” to read a claim term includes both the specification and
`
`the claim language itself. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010). If a term is “used differently by the inventor,” he may provide a
`
`special definition if he does so with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`a.
`
` Wideband speech signal (independent claims 1, 8, 15, 29,
`and 36).
`
`The term “wideband signal” is used throughout the claims of the ‘524
`
`patent including independent claims 1, 8, 15, 29 and 36. For example, claim 1
`
`recites “[a] perceptual weighting device for producing a perceptually weighted
`
`signal in response to a wideband speech signal.”26
`
`The term “wideband signal” has been well-known and commonly-used
`
`by those of ordinary skill in the art for years and need not be construed. When
`
`the patent application corresponding to the ‘524 patent was filed, the term
`
`“wideband signal” commonly appeared in technical publications27 and
`
`
`26 Exhibit 1001, ‘524 patent, col. 18, ll. 24-26.
`
`27 See e.g., P. Mermelstein, “G.722, A new CCITT Coding Standard for Digital
`
`Transmission of Wideband Audio Signals,” IEEE Comm. Mag., Vol. 26, No.
`
`1, pp. 8-15, Jan. 1988 (describing a standard applicable to wideband signals
`
`and discussing the frequency range of wideband audio signals compared to
`
`narrowband audio signals) (attached as Ex. 2001); Fuemmeler et. al,
`
`“Techniques for the Regeneration of Wideband Speech from Narrowband
`
`Speech,” EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing 2001:0, 1-9 (Sep.
`
`2001) (noting that some work has already been done in the area of wideband
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`patents.28 Accordingly, the term “wideband signal” would have been common
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ‘524 patent.
`
`Moreover, the Specification of the ‘524 patent distinguishes the
`
`“wideband signal” from a traditional telephone signal:
`
`The demand for efficient digital wideband speech/audio encoding
`
`techniques with a good subjective quality/bit rate trade-off is
`
`increasing for numerous applications such as audio/video
`
`teleconferencing, multimedia, and wireless applications, as well as
`
`Internet and packet network applications. Until recently, telephone
`
`bandwidths filtered in the range 200–3400 Hz were mainly used in
`
`speech coding applications. However, there is an increasing
`
`
`speech regeneration) (attached as Ex. 2002); C.H. Ritz et. al., “Lossless
`
`Wideband Speech Coding,” 10th Australian Int’l. Conference on Speech
`
`Science & Technology, p. 249 (Dec. 2004) (noting that wideband speech refers
`
`to speech sampled at 16 kHz and acknowledging existing research into
`
`wideband speech coding) (attached as Ex. 2003).
`
`28 See, e.g., U.S. 5,581,652, filed Sep. 29, 1993 (titled: “Reconstruction of
`
`wideband speech from narrow band speech using codebooks) (Ex. K); U.S.
`
`6,615169, filed Oct. 18, 2000 (titled: “High frequency enhancement layer
`
`coding in wideband speech codec”) (Ex. 2004).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`demand for wideband speech applications in order to increase the
`
`intelligibility and naturalness of the speech signals.29
`
`That is, the Specification of the ‘524 patent describes a “wideband signal” by
`
`comparing it to a traditional telephone signal.
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable construction of “wideband signal”
`
`in light of the Specification of the ‘524 Patent is “a signal having a bandwidth
`
`that is larger than a traditional telephone signal.”
`
`
`
`V. THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART.
`
`Any obviousness analysis requires a consideration of the scope and
`
`content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claims.30
`
`The Petitioner proposed obviousness rejections principally on Salami,
`
`Kroon, and Makamura. These references are summarized below.
`
`
`
`
`29 Exhibit 1001, ‘524 patent, col. 1, ll. 19-28.
`
`30 See MPEP § 2141.01, 2141.02.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`a.
`
`Salami (Ex. 1008).
`
`Salami does not disclose the claimed weighting filter comprising of
`
`spectral tilt filter. Rather, Salami discloses an encoder with a weighting filter
`
`W(z) that has no spectral tilt:
`
`Exhibit 1008, p. 448. Salami also discloses an impulse response h(n) of the
`
`combined filter H(z)=W(z)/A(z)=1/A(z/γ) that is calculated without any
`
`
`
`spectral tilt:
`
`Id., p. 449. Salami uses a single zero preemphasis filter (that is not described
`
`by Salami as spectral tilt, but is described in Exhibit 2010) in a different
`
`
`
`context, i.e. as a shaping matrix F(z):
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1008, p. 450. Indeed, Salami teaches away from a filter with a spectral
`
`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`tilt:
`
`Exhibit 1008, p. 450. Contrary to Petitioner’s allegations that “[t]he shaping
`
`matrix is a type of perceptual weighting filter…” (Petition, pp. 20-21), Salami
`
`discloses that the shaping matrix is part of his Algebraic codebook:
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s characterization of Salami conflates its shaping matrix F(z) and its
`
`weighting filter W(z), while Salami teaches that there are significant
`
`differences between them. Salami’s shaping matrix F(z) is not part of Salami’s
`
`weighting filter W(z), and unlike a weighting filter that shapes both input
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524
`
`speech and synthesized speech or the error signal, the shaping matrix F(z) do