Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: October 25, 2017
`
`
`
`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
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: October 25, 2017
`
`
`
`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
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting
`inter partes review of claims 1–21 and 29–42 (hereinafter the “challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’524 patent”)
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Saint Lawrence Communications, LLC.
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper 7,
`“Prelim. Resp.”). We have authority to determine whether to institute a trial
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may
`be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any
`response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`We are not persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail in showing that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we deny institution of an inter partes review as
`to all challenged claims of the ’524 patent.
`A.
`Real Parties in Interest and Related Matters
`Petitioner identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Pet. 1.
`Patent Owner identifies itself (Saint Lawrence Communications LLC) as the
`owner of the entire interest in the ’524 patent. Paper 3, 1.
`Both Petitioner and Patent Owner identify litigation matters relating to
`the ’524 patent in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`captioned as: Saint Lawrence Communications LLV v. ZTE Corp. et al.,
`Case No. 2:15-cv-349-JRG; Saint Lawrence Communications LLC v.
`Motorola Mobility LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-351-JRG; and Saint Lawrence
`Communications LLC v. Apple Inc, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-082-JRG. Pet.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`5–6; Paper 3, 2. Petitioner also identifies six other litigations related to the
`’524 patent, all of which have been terminated. Pet. 5.
`B.
`The ’524 Patent
`According to the ’524 patent, digital encoding of speech/audio is
`widely applicable to numerous applications including audio/video
`teleconferencing, multimedia, and wireless applications. Ex. 1001, 1:19–23.
`Speech encoding (or any audio encoding) converts an audio signal (e.g.,
`speech) into a digital bitstream that can be transmitted to a receiver with a
`decoder, or stored for later retrieval by a device with a decoder, to reproduce
`the encoded audio signal. Id. at 1:33–40. For speech applications, early
`techniques utilized a narrow band of speech signals encoding only audio
`signals ranging between 200–3400 Hz (so-called “narrowband” encoding).
`Id. at 1:24–26. Some techniques utilized wideband encoding to provide
`better quality of speech reproduction—encoding signals ranging from about
`50 through about 7000 Hz. Id. at 1:26–30. In digital encoding, the speech
`signal is periodically sampled to generate a digitized value and the encoder
`is applied to the sequence of digitized values to reduce the number of bits
`required to represent each digitized sample value while maintaining good
`quality in the encoded sounds. Id. at 1:32–38.
`According to the ’524 patent, one widely accepted encoding technique
`for providing a good balance between the bit rate and the resulting quality is
`so-called Code Excited Linear Predictor (“CELP”) encoding. Id. at 1:41–43.
`The ’524 patent summarizes CELP encoding as follows:
`[T]he sampled speech signal is processed in successive blocks of
`L samples usually called frames where L is some predetermined
`number (corresponding to 10-30 ms of speech). In CELP, a
`linear prediction (LP) synthesis filter
`is computed and
`transmitted every frame. The L-sample frame is then divided
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`
`into smaller blocks called subframes of size N samples, where
`L=kN and k is the number of subframes in a frame (N usually
`corresponds to 4-10 ms of speech). An excitation signal is
`determined in each subframe, which usually consists of two
`components: one from the past excitation (also called pitch
`contribution or adaptive codebook) and the other from an
`innovative codebook (also called fixed codebook). 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.
`An innovative codebook in the CELP context, is an
`indexed set of N-sample-long sequences which will be referred
`to as N-dimensional codevectors. Each codebook sequence is
`indexed by an integer k ranging from 1 to M where M represents
`the size of the codebook often expressed as a number of bits b,
`where M=2b.
`To synthesize speech according to the CELP technique,
`each block of N samples is synthesized by filtering an
`appropriate codevector from a codebook through time varying
`filters modelling the spectral characteristics of the speech signal.
`At the encoder end, the synthesis output is computed for all, or a
`subset, of the codevectors from the codebook (codebook search).
`The retained codevector is the one producing the synthesis output
`closest to the original speech signal according to a perceptually
`weighted distortion measure. This perceptual weighting is
`performed using a so-called perceptual weighting filter, which is
`usually derived from the LP synthesis filter.
`Id. at 1:44–2:8.
`According to the ’524 patent, CELP encoding has been widely
`adopted for encoding telephone band (narrowband) sound signals (i.e.,
`ranging between 200 and 3400 Hz). Id. at 2:9–14. In such applications, the
`speech signal is typically sampled at a bit rate of about 8000
`samples/second. Id. at 2:13–14. By contrast, wideband speech encoding
`applications typically sample the speech signal at a higher bit rate of about
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`16000 samples/second to further enhance quality of the encoded speech. Id.
`at 2:14–16. However, according to the ’524 patent, problems arise when
`applying CELP techniques for wideband signal encoding. Id. at 2:17–20. In
`particular, the frequency range of signals to be encoded typically has higher
`energy levels in the lower range of frequencies as compared to the higher
`range of frequencies (a property often referred to as “spectral tilt”) that is
`exacerbated by wider dynamic range of wideband signals to be encoded. Id.
`at 2:24–27. The ’524 patent discloses that a perceptual weighting filter of
`the CELP encoder is modified to adapt to wideband signals and preemphasis
`filters may be utilized to boost the energy of the higher range of frequencies.
`Id. at 2:27–34. However, the ’524 patent also discloses that such
`modifications to the perceptual weighting filter are inefficient for encoding
`wideband signals. Id. at 2:49–57.
`The ’524 patent purports to resolve these problems with a particular
`arrangement of filters in a perceptual weighting device (i.e., an encoder) for
`digitizing wideband audio signals (e.g., speech). Id. at 2:66–3:21. Figure 1,
`reproduced below, is a block diagram of an exemplary CELP-type wideband
`encoding device according to the ’524 patent. Id. at 6:48–50.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’524 patent shows sampled input speech signal 114
`comprising successive frames wherein each frame comprises a number of
`sub-frames. Id. at 6:51–59. Frames and sub-frames are represented as
`parameter values encoding the sampled speech signal. Id. at 6:60–7:37.
`Sampled input speech signal 114 is down-sampled by module 101 to
`increase encoding efficiency by down-sampling the input signal by a 4:5
`ratio (i.e., reducing the number of sampled frames). Id. at 7:45–58. The
`down-sampled speech signal is applied to high-pass filter 102 to eliminate
`unwanted low frequency noise (e.g., below 50 Hz). Id. at 7:59–63. The
`output of high-pass filter 102 is applied to preemphasis filter 103 to enhance
`the higher frequency range of the speech signal. Id. at 7:66–8:18. The
`output of preemphasis filter 103 is applied to LP analysis quantization and
`interpolation calculator 104 and also applied to perceptual weighting filter
`105. Id. at 8:19–9:31. Linear prediction analysis of the preemphasized
`speech signal is performed in module 104. Id. at 8:19–58. Perceptual
`weighting filter 105 applies weighting to the preemphasized speech signal to
`enable further processing to determine the optimal encoding for each frame
`to minimize any error between an encoded value to be later synthesized as a
`speech signal and the input speech signal. Id. 8:59–9:31. In an exemplary
`embodiment, the ’524 patent discloses its perceptual weighting filter is new
`in that it uses a “fixed denominator.” Id. at 9:37–41. The ultimate
`parameters representing the optimal encoding of the input sampled speech
`signal are applied to multiplexor 112 for transmission to a receiver for
`decoding or for storage and later retrieval to decode the encoded speech.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`
`Illustrative Claim
`C.
`Claims 1, 8, 15, 29, and 36 are the challenged independent claims of
`the ’524 patent.1 Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of
`the challenged claims:
`1. A perceptual weighting device for producing a
`perceptually weighted signal in response to a wideband
`speech signal in order to reduce a difference between the
`wideband speech signal and a subsequently synthesized
`wideband speech signal, said perceptual weighting device
`comprising:
`a) 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;
`b) a synthesis filter calculator responsive to said
`preemphasised signal for producing synthesis filter
`coefficients; and
`c) 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, said perceptual weighting
`filter having a transfer function with fixed denominator
`
`
`1 Patent Owner refers to claims 1, 8, 15, 29, and 36 as “independent claims.”
`See generally PO Resp. Claim 1, unquestionably an independent claim,
`recites a perceptual weighting device comprising a combination of elements.
`Claim 15 recites an encoder that comprises the perceptual weighting device
`of claim 1. Claims 29 and 36 recite a cellular transceiver and a cellular
`network, respectively, that each comprise an encoder of claim 15. We take
`no position as to whether claims 15, 29, and 36 are properly phrased as
`independent claims or whether they are simply further dependent claims
`dependent from claim 1. The distinction is irrelevant to our analysis and our
`Decision below.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`whereby weighting of said wideband speech signal in a
`formant region is substantially decoupled from a spectral
`tilt of said wideband speech signal.
`Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`D.
`The Petition sets forth the following asserted grounds of
`unpatentability:
`References
`Salami2 and Kroon3
`Salami, Kroon, and
`Makamura4
`Salami, Kroon, Lim5, and
`Admitted Prior Art (“APA”)6
`Salami, Kroon, Lim, APA,
`and Makamura
`
`The Petition also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Jordan Cohen
`(Ex. 1003) as support for the various contentions. Patent Owner relies on
`the Declaration of Dr. Oded Gottesman (Ex. 2004) in support of its
`contentions.
`
`Basis
`103(a)
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`Challenged Claims
`1, 8, 15, 29, and 36
`2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 30, 31, 37,
`and 38
`6, 13, 20, 34, and 41
`
`103(a)
`
`4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21,
`32, 33, 35, 39, 40, and 42
`
`
`
`
`2 R. Salami et al., Real-Time Implementation Of A 9.6 Kbit/S ACELP
`Wideband Speech Coder, Globecom’92 – IEEE Global Telecommunications
`Conference (1992). Ex. 1008 (“Salami”).
`3 P. Kroon, Regular-Pulse Excitation—A Novel Approach To Effective And
`Efficient Multipulse Coding Of Speech, IEEE Transactions on Acoustics,
`Speech, & Signal Processing (1986). Ex. 1005 (“Kroon”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,295,224. Ex. 1021 (“Makamura”).
`5 J. S. Lim et al., Enhancement & Bandwidth Compression Of Noisy Speech,
`Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 67, No. 12 (1979). Ex. 1014 (“Lim”).
`6 Petitioner identifies certain claimed features as admitted prior art based on
`citations within the ’524 patent. Pet. 57.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. General Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such
`that the subject matter[,] as a whole[,] would have been obvious at the time
`the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
`underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`Claim Construction
`B.
`As a step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a review,
`we determine the meaning of the claims for purposes of this Decision. In an
`inter partes review, a claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard).
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are
`generally 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). “[A] claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered on
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`the claim language itself.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water
`Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Though
`understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations
`contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim
`limitations that are not a part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV
`Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Only terms that are in
`controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355,
`1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`Petitioner proposes interpretations of a number of terms in the ’524
`patent. Pet. 15–19. Petitioner points to a Markman Order in a litigation
`related to the ’524 patent in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`Texas in support of many of Petitioner’s proposed interpretations. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1019).
`Patent Owner “opposes the Petitioner’s proposed claim
`constructions.” PO Resp. 13. However, with the exception of the term
`“wideband speech signal,” Patent Owner does not identify a problem with
`any of Petitioner’s proposed interpretations. Although the parties express
`some slight difference in their respective interpretations of “wideband
`speech signal,” we determine that it is unnecessary to construe any claim
`terms for this Decision.
`B.
`Alleged Obviousness Over Salami and Kroon
`The Petition asserts that claims 1, 8, 15, 29, and 36 (all independent
`claims of the challenged claims) would have been obvious over the
`combined teachings of Salami and Kroon. Pet. 14–46.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`
`Salami (Ex. 1008)
`1.
`According to Salami, known CELP algorithms suffered from
`computational complexity that precluded real-time implementation for
`transmission of high quality digitized voice signals. Ex. 1008, 22.7 Salami
`purports to resolve this problem by disclosing an improved CELP coding
`structure (Salami refers to its structure as “Algebraic” CELP or simply
`“ACELP”). Id.
`Figure 1 of Salami is reproduced below with our annotation in red.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Salami shows a synthesis model (a decoder) for decoding a block
`of speech samples. Ex. 1008, 23. The speech samples are represented as
`encoded parameters enclosed by our added red box annotation. Each
`encoded sample is applied to algebraic codebook and shaping filter within
`dynamic algebraic codebook. Id. The decoded value is scaled by a gain
`factor (“G”) determined by the encoded parameters and the result thereof is
`
`
`7 Although the Petition cites portions of Exhibit 1008 and other exhibits
`using the page numbers of the underlying publication, we cite to the page
`numbering added to the Exhibits in compliance with our rules.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`applied to two time varying filters—first, long-term predictor (“LTP”)
`followed by short-term predictor (“STP”).
`The LTP filter is expressed in Salami as:
`
`
`
`
`where β is the pitch gain parameter and α is the pitch
`delay parameter. Id. The STP filter (also known as the linear prediction
`(“LP”) filter) is represented in Salami as:
`
`
`where p is the predictor order and ai are the predictor coefficients. Id.
`Speech samples may be encoded as shown in Salami’s Table 2
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Salami’s Table 2 describes the allocation of bits in encoded speech samples.
`Id. at 25.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`
`Salami teaches that the encoded parameters (pitch delay, pitch gain,
`codebook address, and codebook gain) are determined “using an analysis-
`by-synthesis technique” in which an encoded signal is selected from all
`candidate innovation sequences that minimizes a difference from the
`“original signal according to a perceptually weighted distortion measure.”
`Id. at 23. The error weighting filter is expressed in Salami as:
`
`
`
`
`
`where 0 < γ < 1. Id.
`
`To improve the LP analysis in encoding, Salami discloses, inter alia, that a
`preemphasis filter is applied to the input speech signal to emphasize higher
`frequencies. Id.
`
`Kroon (Ex. 1005)
`2.
`Kroon discloses a speech encoding/decoding technique asserted top
`lower computational complexity. Ex. 1005, 5. Kroon discloses, in pertinent
`part, that time-varying weighting filters contribute to computation
`complexity and, thus, discloses a time-invariant error-weighting filter to
`reduce computational complexity. Id. at 8.
`3.
`Analysis: Independent Claims 1, 8, 15, 29, and 36
`Petitioner identifies the recited features of independent claim 1 in the
`combined disclosures of Salami and Kroon. Pet. 27–37. Specifically, the
`preamble of claim 1 recites, “A perceptual weighting device for producing a
`perceptually weighted signal in response to a wideband speech signal in
`order to reduce a difference between the wideband speech signal and a
`subsequently synthesized wideband speech signal.” Petitioner argues Salami
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`discloses such a device in that Figure 1, as reproduced supra, discloses a
`decoder that decodes perceptually weighted signals received from an
`encoder, the signals representing a wideband speech signal, and discloses the
`encoded signals reduce the difference between the synthesized speech signal
`and the original speech signal. Pet. 27–30 (citing Ex. 1008, 22–23, Fig. 1;
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114 et seq.8).
`Claim 1 further recites the elements that comprise the claimed
`perceptual weighting device as including: a preemphasis filter; a synthesis
`filter calculator responsive to the preemphasis filter output; and a perceptual
`weighting filter responsive to the preemphasis filter output and the synthesis
`filter calculator output. The Petition identifies the recited preemphasis filter
`as Salami’s disclosure of applying a preemphasis filter to the input speech
`signal to enhance a high frequency range of the signal. Pet. 30–31 (citing
`Ex. 1008, 23). The Petition identifies the recited synthesis filter calculator
`as a linear prediction (LP) filter disclosed in Salami as the short-term
`predictor (STP) and asserts this filter is responsive to the preemphasized
`signal generated by the preemphasis filter. Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1008,
`23). Lastly, the Petition identifies the recited perceptual weighting filter as
`Salami’s disclosure of an error-weighting filter and asserts the error-
`weighting filter is responsive to the preemphasized signal of the preemphasis
`filter. Id. at 32–35 (citing Ex. 1008, 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94–98, 114 et seq.).
`
`
`8 Petitioner cites paragraphs “114 et seq.” of Dr. Cohen’s Declaration
`(Ex. 1003) in support of several of its contentions. Pet. 30, 33, 35, 39, 40,
`42–46. Petitioner’s non-specific references to all paragraphs numbered 114
`and beyond are improper. Petitioner leaves it to this panel to determine
`which of paragraphs 114 through 161 of the Declaration are offered in
`support of its contentions.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that Salami fails to disclose that the transfer
`function of the recited perceptual weighting filter has a fixed denominator
`(id. at 23), but argues Kroon, in combination with Salami, discloses a fixed
`(time-invariant) denominator for such a filter transfer function (id. at 35–36
`(citing Ex. 1005, 8–9; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92, 104–113)).
`Patent Owner argues, inter alia, the proposed combination of
`references fails to teach the recited preemphasis filter and the recited
`perceptual weighting filter. PO Resp. 32–37. More specifically, Patent
`Owner argues all challenged independent claims include an encoder, but
`Salami discloses a decoder. Id. at 33. Patent Owner contends claims 15, 29,
`and 36 explicitly recite an encoder while claims 1 and 8 are directed to an
`encoder because they each recite features that generate synthesized
`wideband speech with minimal differences from a wideband speech signal—
`i.e., a wideband speech signal is input to generate (encode) a synthesized
`wideband speech signal therefrom. Id. (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 86). Patent Owner
`contends the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that a
`perceptual weighting filter would only exist in an encoder and that the
`decoder of Salami does not have a preemphasis filter. Id. Patent Owner
`asserts Petitioner’s argument is mere speculation regarding the components
`of an encoder based on Salami’s disclosure of a decoder. Id. at 34.
`Regarding the recited preemphasis filter, Patent Owner acknowledges that
`Salami discusses a preemphasis process, but contends Salami discloses
`preemphasis to improve LP analysis—not for the recited purpose of claim 1
`to enhance a high-frequency range of the wideband voice signal before
`further filter processing within the encoder. Id. 35–36. Therefore, Patent
`Owner argues, “[a]ccordingly, Salami would not have taught ‘a perceptual
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`weighting filter, responsive to said preemphasized signal and said synthesis
`filter coefficients, for filtering said preemphasized signal’” as required by
`the claims. Id. at 36–37.
`After considering the parties’ arguments and cited evidence, we
`determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Salami teaches the
`identified limitations of claim 1. Figure 1 of Salami is a decoder of encoded
`speech signals—i.e., a “synthesis model” capable of decoding speech
`encoded according to the ACELP techniques disclosed in Salami. Ex. 1008,
`23 (“Figure 1 shows the synthesis model in ACELP coders.”). Although
`Salami’s Figure 1 shows encoded speech signals received by the decoding
`elements, the figure does not disclose the structure of an encoder that
`generates those encoded signals.
`Although Salami does not provide a figure depicting the structure of
`an encoder, we find Salami discloses use of a preemphasis filter in speech
`encoding. Ex. 1008, 23 (“The first is to preemphasize the input speech
`signal. . . . it emphasizes the higher frequencies in the speech signal”). We
`also find that Salami discloses some form of perceptual weighting and an
`element that generates linear predictor (LP) coefficients:
`The LP coefficients are determined using the method of linear
`prediction analysis by minimizing the mean-squared prediction
`error. The pitch parameters (delay and gain) and the codeboook
`[sic] parameters (address and gain) are determined at the encoder
`using an analysis-by-synthesis technique. In this technique, the
`synthetic speech is computed for all candidate innovation
`sequences in the codebook retaining the particular codeword that
`produces the output closer to the original signal according to a
`perceptually weighted distortion measure.
`
`Id.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, we determine Salami discloses the individual elements of the
`encoding device of, for example, claim 1. However, we agree with Patent
`Owner that Salami does not disclose that the preemphasized input speech
`signal is used as an input to a perceptual weighting filter as recited in claim
`1. See PO Resp. 35–37. Specifically, claim 1 specifies both the synthesis
`filter calculator and the perceptual weighting filter are responsive to the
`preemphasized signal generated by the preemphasis filter, which is, in turn,
`responsive to the input wideband speech signal, and further specifies that the
`perceptual weighting filter is also responsive to the coefficients generated by
`the synthesis filter calculator. In other words, the claim requires an
`arrangement of the various elements of an encoder in which the output of the
`preemphasis filter (the preemphasized signal) is applied to the synthesis
`filter calculator and applied to the perceptual weighting filter, and the
`coefficients generated by the synthesis filter calculator are applied to the
`perceptual weighting filter. An excerpt of Figure 1 of the ’524 patent,
`reproduced below, shows a block diagram of relevant portions of such an
`encoder arrangement.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`The above excerpt of Figure 1 of the ’524 patent depicts preemphasis filter
`103, coupled to receive wideband speech signals (“Sp”) and configured to
`generate preemphasized speech signal (“S”). Ex. 1001, 7:64–8:18. The
`output of preemphasis filter 103 (“S”) is applied to LP analysis quantization
`and interpolation calculator 104 and perceptual weighting filter 105. Id. at
`8:19–9:45. Petitioner directs us to no disclosure in Salami of such an
`arrangement of filters in an encoding device.
`Specifically regarding the perceptual weighting filter, Petitioner
`argues:
`Second, Salami discloses that the perceptual weighting filter is
`responsive to the pre-emphasized signal. For instance, Salami
`discloses that the pre-emphasis filter operates on the original
`input wideband speech signal (see [1.1]), and the preemphasized
`signal is sent to the LP filter for LP analysis (see [1.2]); then, the
`preemphasized signal is input to the perceptual weighting filter:
`“The LP coefficients are determined using the method of
`linear prediction analysis”; then, Salami discloses that
`“the synthetic speech is computed . . . according to a
`perceptually weighted distortion measure.”
`Ex-1008, [23]. Therefore, Salami states here that the pre-
`emphasized wideband speech signal is first used for LP analysis,
`and next, the pre-emphasized signal is perceptually weighted and
`used to compute the excitation codeword. Ex-1003, ¶¶ 114 et
`seq.
`Pet. 33 (emphases in original). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s
`argument. Petitioner highlights two quotations from Salami and excludes
`significant text between the two quotes. Including and highlighting the text
`excluded by Petitioner, Salami discloses:
`The LP coefficients are determined using the method of linear
`prediction analysis by minimizing the mean-squared prediction
`error. The pitch parameters (delay and gain) and the
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`codeboook [sic] parameters (address and gain) are determined
`at the encoder using an analysis-by synthesis technique. In this
`technique, the synthetic speech is computed for all candidate
`innovation sequences in the codebook retaining the particular
`codeword that produces the output closer to the original signal
`according to a perceptually weighted distortion measure.
`Ex. 1008, 23. We discern no teaching or suggestion in this text of Salami
`that the preemphasized signal is used on a perceptual weighting filter. We
`find no support in the cited portions of Salami for Petitioner’s assertion that
`the preemphasized signal is first applied to LP analysis and then the same
`preemphasized signal is perceptually weighted (i.e., applied to a perceptually
`weighted filter). Petitioner’s argument in the Petition does not explain
`specifically how the cited text teaches the identified claim limitations and,
`thus, amounts to little more than an unsupported conclusory remark. Dr.
`Cohen merely repeats the same argument without providing any further
`explanation. Ex. 1003, 65 (the portion of the claim chart of paragraph 114
`for this element of claim 1).
`Patent Owner argues, “[i]n contrast to the ’524 patent in which the
`preemphasised signal is used for both the LPC analysis and the perceptual
`weighting filter (Ex. 1001, Figure 1 (reproduced above)), a POSITA would
`have understood Salami’s encoder to filter the input speech as shown
`below.” PO Resp. 36; see also Ex. 2004 ¶ 92. Patent Owner’s diagram of a
`possible alternate arrangement of elements in an encoder of Salami is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐01244
`
`
`
`Patent 6,807,524 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed alternate arrangement shows an input speech
`signal (“S(n)”) applied to preemphasis filter, the output of which is applied
`to LPC analysis to generate linear prediction coefficients (“A(z)”) applied to
`“Salami Encoder” along with the original input speech signals (“S(n)”).
`We have no basis for presuming Patent Owner’s suggested
`arrangement of elements for an encoder in Salami is a correct interpretation.
`Nonetheless, we agree that, in the absence of disclosure within Salami
`regarding the specific structure of its encoder, Petitioner has not shown
`sufficiently that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have perceived Salami
`to disclose the particular arrangement recited in, for example, claim 1. Thus,
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the ordinarily skilled artisan would
`have understood Salami to disclose or suggest application of a
`preemphasized signal to a perceptual weighted filter as required by claim 1.
`Independent claim 8 includes a similar recitation of encoder features
`for which Petitioner relies on the same argument as for claim 1. Pet. 37–38.
`Claim 15 recites “a perceptual weighting device as recited in claim 1” and,
`thus, incorporates the same encoder limitations for which Petitioner relies on
`the same arguments as for claim 1. Id. at 38. Claims 29 and 36 each recite
`“an encoder for encoding a wideband speech signal as recited in claim 15”
`and, thus, each incorporates the same encoder features as claim 1. For these
`encoder features of claims 29 and 36, Petitioner relies on the same
`arguments as for claim 1. Id. at 44, 46.
`Accordingly, we are no
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
