UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Patent No. RE48,371
`Filing Date: August 2, 2018
`Issue Date: October 14, 2014
`Reissue Date: December 29, 2020
`
`Title: MICROPHONE ARRAY SYSTEM
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Case No. IPR2021-01331
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Patent No. RE48,371
`Filing Date: August 2, 2018
`Issue Date: October 14, 2014
`Reissue Date: December 29, 2020
`
`Title: MICROPHONE ARRAY SYSTEM
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Case No. IPR2021-01331
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`Page(s)
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`DR. QI “PETER” LI AND HIS COMPANIES............................................... 1
`II.
`III. LITIGATION HISTORY BETWEEN VOCALIFE AND AMAZON........... 2
`IV. THE DEPOSITION OF AMAZON’S EXPERT, JOHN M.
`STRAWN, PH.D. ............................................................................................ 4
`THE LAW OF OBVIOUSNESS ..................................................................... 9
`V.
`VI. THE PROPOSED REUSS COMBINATIONS DO NOT DISCLOSE
`OR RENDER OBVIOUS THE SOUND SOURCE
`LOCALIZATION UNIT LIMITATIONS .................................................... 10
`VII. THE PROPOSED REUSS COMBINATION DOES NOT
`DISCLOSE OR RENDER OBVIOUS THE FOUR CLAIMED
`UNITS IN ONE SINGLE DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSOR ..................... 28
`VIII. PETITIONER INCONSISTENTLY RELIES ON MULTIPLE
`DISTINCT EMBODIMENTS OF REUSS, AND FAILS TO
`CONDUCT THE PROPER OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS ACROSS
`THE DISTINCT EMBODIMENTS .............................................................. 34
`IX. THE PROPOSED CHEN COMBINATIONS DO NOT DISCLOSE
`OR RENDER OBVIOUS THE SOUND SOURCE
`LOCALIZATION UNIT LIMITATIONS .................................................... 34
`THE PROPOSED CHEN COMBINATION DOES NOT
`DISCLOSE OR RENDER OBVIOUS THE FOUR CLAIMED
`UNITS IN ONE SINGLE DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSOR ..................... 51
`XI. PETITIONER INCONSISTENTLY RELIES ON MULTIPLE
`DISTINCT EMBODIMENTS OF CHEN, AND FAILS TO
`CONDUCT THE PROPER OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS ACROSS
`THE DISTINCT EMBODIMENTS .............................................................. 55
`
`X.
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`
`XII. DMOCHOWSKI DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR RENDER
`OBVIOUS ENABLING BEAMFORMING…IN A PLURALITY
`OF CONFIGURATIONS .............................................................................. 56
`XIII. ABUTALEBI DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR RENDER OBVIOUS
`SUB-BAND ADAPTIVE FILTERING FOR ADAPTIVE
`BEAMFORMING ......................................................................................... 56
`XIV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 57
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Vocalife LLC,
`IPR2020-00864, Paper 26 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2021) ............................................ 2
`Apple, Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00355, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. June 26, 2015) ........................................... 10
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 10
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................................. 9
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v.
`Eli Lilly & Co.,
`849 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 10
`Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 9
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description of Document
`
`Final Judgment from Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.,
`USDC EDTX No. 2:19-CV-00123-JRG, Dkt. 343, dated Nov. 13,
`2020
`Docket Control Order from Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.,
`USDC EDTX No. 2:20-CV-00401-JRG, Dkt. 34, dated June 3,
`2021.
`Excerpts from Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions from Vocalife
`LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., USDC EDTX No. 2:19-CV-00123-
`JRG, served Nov. 1, 2019
`Excerpts from Defendants’ Preliminary Invalidity Contentions from
`Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., USDC EDTX No. 2:20-
`CV-00401-JRG, served June 23, 2021
`Claim Construction Order from Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.
`et al., USDC EDTX No. 2:19-CV-00123-JRG, Dkt. 83, dated April
`6, 2020
`Excerpts from Joint Claim Construction Chart Pursuant to P.R. 4-
`5(d) from Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., USDC EDTX
`No. 2:20-CV-00401-JRG, Dkt. 61, dated Nov. 5, 2021
`Declaration of Jacek P. Dmochowski, Ph.D.
`Declaration of Jacek P. Dmochowski, Ph.D.
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`Deposition Transcript of John M. Strawn, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`
`iv
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On January 31, 2022, the Board instituted a petition filed by Amazon.com,
`
`Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Amazon”) for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE48,371 (Ex. 1001, “the ’371 Patent”), authorizing review of Claims 22-41 (“the
`
`Challenged Claims”). Paper 11 at 2. Patent Owner Vocalife LLC (“Patent Owner”
`
`or “Vocalife”) files this response in opposition to the grounds set forth in the Petition
`
`as authorized for review by the Board.
`
`The Board made clear that its preliminary findings and conclusions were
`
`“based on the evidentiary record developed thus far” at the time of the Institution
`
`Decision and did not consider any testimony from the author of the Dmochowski
`
`reference, Dr. Jacek Dmochowski, or from Vocalife’s expert, Mr. Joseph
`
`McAlexander. Paper 11 at 2-3, 12. The Board also did not consider the deposition
`
`testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. John Strawn.
`
`As set forth herein, in view of the evidence of record, Petitioner has not met
`
`its burden of providing any proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence.
`
`II. DR. QI “PETER” LI AND HIS COMPANIES
`The ’371 Patent lists Dr. Qi “Peter” Li as one of two inventors. Dr. Li is also
`
`the owner of Vocalife and its sister company Li Creative Technologies.1 Dr. Li’s
`
`
`1 See, e.g., https://licreative.com/ and https://crispmic.com/
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`companies were started by former Bell Labs research scientists and have become
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`recognized leaders in the technology fields of digital signal processing, speech
`
`recognition, natural language processing, far-field microphone array technology, 3D
`
`audio and music, among others. Dr. Li was the winner of the International CES
`
`Innovations Design and Engineering Award and has been awarded numerous federal
`
`grants for research and development, including for numerous DARPA projects.
`
`Dr. Li’s companies provide new products, designs, services, and solutions for
`
`government and commercial enterprises,
`
`including
`
`smartphones, video
`
`conferencing, home automation, music, banking, and transportation industries. As
`
`part of these advancements, the ’371 Patent claims an invention related to far-field
`
`microphone array technology.
`
`III. LITIGATION HISTORY BETWEEN VOCALIFE AND
`AMAZON
`Vocalife and Amazon were parties to Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case
`
`No. 2:19-cv-00123-JRG (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2019) (“Vocalife I”) which progressed
`
`to a jury trial before the Honorable Rodney Gilstrap. Vocalife I resulted in a final
`
`judgment entering a jury verdict of infringement and validity of claims 1 and 8 of
`
`U.S. Patent RE47,049 (the ’049 Patent”). See Exhibit 2001. The jury entered a
`
`$5,000,000 verdict to be paid by Amazon. Id.
`
`During Vocalife I, Amazon filed a concurrent petition in IPR2020-00864,
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`which was denied institution. In its decision, the Board found “the merits are weak.”
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Vocalife LLC, IPR2020-00864, Paper 26 at 3 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22,
`
`2021).
`
`The ’371 Patent is a reissue continuation of the ’049 Patent; they share a
`
`common ancestor patent that was surrendered for their respective reissue
`
`applications. Many of the same limitations existing in both the ’049 Patent and ’371
`
`Patent have already withstood the scrutiny of Amazon’s four trial law firms and have
`
`been found to be valid after a five-day trial on the merits, as well as the weak grounds
`
`in IPR2020-00864. The instant Petition simply re-packages many of the same old
`
`references that were previously relied on by Amazon at trial and in IPR2020-00864,
`
`including the Dmochowski reference.
`
`This Petition asserts EIGHT GROUNDS. Pet. at 8. Grounds 1-4 are based
`
`on variations of Reuss and Dmochowski with one or more of Li, Brandstein, and
`
`Abutalebi. Grounds 5-8 are based on variations of Chen and Dmochowski with one
`
`or more of Li, Brandstein, and Abutalebi. The prior art references and obviousness
`
`grounds cannot render the Challenged Claims obvious because they fail to disclose
`
`all of the elements required by the Challenged Claims. For example, the prior art
`
`references do not disclose the claimed “sound source localization unit” limitations,
`
`as well as the claimed digital signal processor with four specific units, namely: a
`
`“sound source localization unit,” “adaptive beamforming unit,” “noise reduction
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`unit,” and “echo cancellation unit” implemented in a digital signal processor
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`(“DSP”), as expressly required by the Challenged Claims.
`
`IV. THE DEPOSITION OF AMAZON’S EXPERT, JOHN M.
`STRAWN, PH.D.
`On May 5, 2022, Vocalife took the deposition of Amazon’s expert, John M.
`
`Strawn, Ph.D. See Ex. 2010. The deposition exposed numerous inconsistencies with
`
`certain positions set forth in the Petition. Such inconsistencies are identified in detail
`
`below.
`
`Critically, Dr. Strawn’s deposition exposed a fatal flaw in his analysis.
`
`Dr. Strawn clearly and unambiguously testified that he reaches beyond the four
`
`corners of the patent prior art references, e.g., Reuss and Chen, to import disclosures
`
`from the References Cited listed on the face the prior art reference (which are not
`
`otherwise incorporated by reference into the reference).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`
`Ex. 2010 at 92. Dr. Strawn confirmed, with a specific example, how he attributes
`
`extrinsic disclosures to the Reuss reference.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`
`Id. at 92-93. Thus, when Dr. Strawn opines that something is disclosed in a
`
`reference, his opinion is based on a combined disclosure of the reference, plus all
`
`the disclosures of the documents listed in the References Cited section of the patent.
`
`This is problematic because it means that Dr. Strawn is importing content into the
`
`references. This is particularly problematic because, in this Petition, the references
`
`themselves are lacking in express disclosure for particular elements. For example,
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Strawn acknowledged the terms and words “sound source localization” and
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`“sound source localization unit” are not found in the Reuss reference.
`
`
`
`Id. at 85-86. Nonetheless, Dr. Strawn insisted they were taught by the Reuss
`
`reference, without identifying any particular element or component in the Reuss
`
`reference. Without further explanation (and there is none), it is clear that Dr. Strawn
`
`must be improperly drawing from disclosures that are not part of the Reuss and Chen
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`references in order to meet the claims.
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`For numerous elements, Dr. Strawn was asked to identify exactly which
`
`element in the reference corresponds to the claimed element. Dr. Strawn’s common
`
`approach was to deflect the question by parroting the claim element without
`
`identifying a specific element in the reference that corresponds to the claimed
`
`element. See, e.g., id. at 45:20-62:14 (attempting to obtain an answer identifying the
`
`Reuss element(s) that correspond to the claimed digital signal processor), Id. 62:15-
`
`79:7 (attempting to obtain an answer identifying the Reuss element(s) that
`
`correspond to the claimed beamforming unit, whether the beamform voice
`
`processor, beamform noise processor, and voice activity detector, alone or together,
`
`meet the claimed beamforming unit). This is not sufficient for claim elements that
`
`have no direct correspondence in name within the references, e.g., where “sound
`
`source localization unit” is not expressly recited in the claim. Dr. Strawn’s improper
`
`approach of evading questions that would lock him into identifying specific mapping
`
`and Dr. Strawn’s admission of importing and attributing extrinsic disclosures into
`
`the applied references should significantly diminish his credibility. The Board
`
`should accord little to no weight to his testimony. Undoubtedly, Amazon and Dr.
`
`Strawn will attempt to clean up his testimony in a reply declaration, and any further
`
`contradictions should further diminish his credibility. Respectfully, the Board
`
`should consider Dr. Strawn’s testimony with extreme caution, particularly where the
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`prior art reference does not recite certain claim terms or support Dr. Strawn’s
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`testimony.
`
`V. THE LAW OF OBVIOUSNESS
`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) where in evidence, so called secondary considerations. Graham
`
`v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, at 17–18 (1966). The question is not
`
`whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the
`
`claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip
`
`Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`In arriving at an obviousness determination, the Board must sufficiently
`
`explain and support the conclusions that the prior art references disclose all the
`
`elements recited in the Challenged Claims and a relevant skilled artisan not only
`
`could have made but would have been motivated to combine all the prior art
`
`references in the way the patent claims and reasonably expected success. Pers. Web
`
`Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017). That is, even if all
`
`the claim elements are found across a number of references, an obviousness
`
`determination must consider whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`the motivation to combine those references. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Los Angeles Biomedical
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`Research Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d 1049, 1067
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (vacating and remanding an obviousness determination, in part,
`
`because the Board did not make factual finding as to whether there was an apparent
`
`reason to combine all three prior art references to achieve the claimed invention and
`
`whether a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success from such a combination.) This combinability determination, as supported
`
`by an articulated motivation to combine, requires a plausible rationale as to why
`
`those prior art references would have worked together. Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex
`
`Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`The Board has held that a failure to identify the differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter and the prior art is fatal to an obviousness challenge. See
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-00355, Paper 9 at 9-10
`
`(P.T.A.B. June 26, 2015) (denying institution for failure to identify the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art).
`
`VI. THE PROPOSED REUSS COMBINATIONS DO NOT
`DISCLOSE OR RENDER OBVIOUS THE SOUND SOURCE
`LOCALIZATION UNIT LIMITATIONS
`Claim 38 requires “a sound source localization unit that estimates a location
`
`of said target sound signal from said received sound signals by determining a delay
`
`between each of said sound sensors and a reference point of said array of said sound
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`sensors as a function of distance between each of said sound sensors and said
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`reference point and an angle of each of said sound sensors biased from a reference
`
`axis.” Claim 38 also requires that the “sound source localization unit” must be
`
`within the single claimed “digital signal processor.”
`
`Reuss fails to disclose or suggest any “sound source localization unit.” Ex.
`
`2009, McAlexander Decl., ¶ 30. Petitioner’s expert confirms that the terms “sound
`
`source localization unit” and sound source localization are not recited in Reuss. Id.,
`
`¶ 30.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`
`
`Ex. 2010 at 85-86.
`
`Petitioner incorrectly suggests that this limitation is broader than recited by
`
`stating that “[t]he claimed SSL unit is software or hardware that includes
`
`functionality for locating a sound source.” Pet. at 17; Ex. 2009, ¶ 31. This over-
`
`generalization was rejected by Petitioner’s own expert during his deposition.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Q.
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`Is it your understanding that
`Q.
`the sound source localization unit is
`
`software or hardware that includes
`
`functionality for locating a sound source?
`
`MR. HEIDEMAN: Objection to
`
`form.
`
`A.
`
`The claim language is that the
`
`sound source localization unit -- again,
`I'm in claim 38 -- estimates a location.
`
`So the particular unit could be hardware,
`could be software or could be a combination
`
`of both, except that it's inside a DSP in
`this claim.
`
`And is it your understanding
`Q.
`that the sound source localization unit is
`
`software or hardware that includes
`
`functionality for locating a sound source?
`
`MR. HEIDEMAN: Objection to
`
`form.
`
`A.
`
`Sir, that's the identical
`
`question.
`
`I have nothing more to add.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`Well, you didn't address the last part of my question. That's whether
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`
`
`Ex. 2010 at 83-84; Ex. 2009, ¶ 31. In contending that Reuss discloses the “sound
`
`source localization unit” limitations, Petitioner largely ignores that the claim
`
`requires a specific type of sound source localization unit “that estimates a location
`
`of said target sound signal from said received sound signals by determining a delay
`
`between each of said sound sensors and a reference point of said array of said sound
`
`sensors as a function of distance between each of said sound sensors and said
`
`reference point and an angle of each of said sound sensors biased from a reference
`
`axis.” Id., ¶ 32. Petitioner merely addresses its broader characterization of locating
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`a sound source. Pet. at 17-18; Ex. 2009, ¶ 32. Petitioner purports, with a vague
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`portion of a quote, that DOA can be implemented. But Reuss, including the cited
`
`section, does not disclose using DOA for any “sound source localization unit.” Id.,
`
`¶ 33. Instead, Reuss’s disclosure limits the use of DOA to finding noise or echoes.
`
`Ex. 1009 (“Reuss”) at 7:24-67; Ex. 2009, ¶ 33. Petitioner’s expert confirmed that
`
`Reuss’ DOA is limited to noise and echo.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`
`Do you see where it Q. Okay.
` 24
`
`says, "Determine the Direction of Arrival
`25
`
`
`U.S. Legal Support
`| www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`
`
`
`
`John M. Strawn, Ph.D.
`
`May 05, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`
`9
`
`0
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`(DOA) for the strongest noise sources
`
`greater than the noise threshold"?
`
`A.
`
`Yes, sir,
`
`I see the text.
`
`So DOA can be used in the
`Q.
`context of noise reduction or noise
`
`suppression; correct?
`
`MR. HEIDEMAN: Objection to
`
`form.
`
`A.
`
`I don't really understand the
`
`question. Yes, one way to implement noise
`reduction is to involve the direction of
`
`arrival of the noise source.
`
`Q.
`
`All right. Let's go to the
`
`next paragraph. One way to -- well,
`withdrawn.
`
`Do you see the last sentence
`
`starting on line 50 of column 7, it reads,
`
`"the Acoustic Echo Direction of Arrival
`
`(AE
`
`DOA) with the strongest ratio" is selected.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`A.
`
`Do you see that?
`
`Yes, sir. That's referring to
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`his figure 3,
`
`the flow chart.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`So one way to implement
`
`acoustic echo cancellation or suppression
`
`is also to involve DOA, correct?
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`
`
`Ex. 2010 at 94-96; Ex. 2009, ¶ 33. There is no disclosure in Reuss that uses DOA
`
`for anything other than noise suppression and echo cancellation, which means that
`
`DOA is not a “sound source localization unit” and that DOA implemented for noise
`
`and echo cannot disclose any of the claimed requirements of the “sound source
`
`localization unit.” Id., ¶ 34. Instead, Reuss relies on a voice activity detector in
`
`order to identify a speaker’s voice and distinguish it from noise. Reuss at 8:26-50;
`
`Ex. 2009, ¶ 34. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that voice
`
`activity detection is not “sound source localization,” as claimed, and that voice
`
`activity detection can be achieved using a simple voice detection or pattern
`
`matching. Id., ¶ 35. Thus, Reuss does not disclose “sound source localization”
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`because it relies on the prior art “voice activity detection” to detect a voice. Id.
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`Accordingly, Reuss cannot be interpreted to disclose or suggest a sound source
`
`localization unit “that estimates a location of said target sound signal from said
`
`received sound signals by determining a delay between each of said sound sensors
`
`and a reference point of said array of said sound sensors as a function of distance
`
`between each of said sound sensors and said reference point and an angle of each of
`
`said sound sensors biased from a reference axis.” Id.
`
`
`
`Petitioner presents an alternative argument that Reuss inherently discloses the
`
`limitation because Reuss “necessarily estimates the voice signal’s location” and
`
`“necessarily includes an SSL unit . . . because that is the only way” to locate a sound
`
`source. Pet. at 19; Ex. 2009, ¶ 36. This alternative argument fails because it is not
`
`supported by fact or evidence. First, Reuss could have predetermined locations,
`
`particularly because the Reuss reference is directed to noise isolation for headsets
`
`and the Reuss reference is assigned to Plantronics, a headset company. Id. Second,
`
`to the extent Reuss would need to determine a location because the source having
`
`the headset is moving, Reuss could have used other ways to find a location besides
`
`“sound source localization unit.” Id. During his deposition, Petitioner’s own expert
`
`confirmed that sound source localization unit is not the only way to find the location
`
`of sound source in space.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Then there's the place of the
`recognition.
`sound source in 3D space.
`So I'm not sure what you mean
`
`here by "find the sound source."
`
`| www.uslegalsuppo
`.S. Legal Support
`
`
`John M. Strawn, Ph.D.
`May 05, 2022
`
`sound source has, among other things,
`
`amplitude, which we hear as loudness;
`frequency, which we hear as pitch;
`timbre,
`which includes spectrum, but also
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`
`
`So what's confusing to you
`Q.
`about the phrase "find a sound source"?
`A.
`As I said before, a sound
`
`source has many aspects, and I don't know
`which one you mean.
`Q.
`What are the aspects?
`
`A.
`
`I've answered that question.
`
`A U
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`Q.
`
`So each of those aspects that
`
`you just listed can be used to determine
`
`the location of a sound source in space;
`
`is
`
`that right?
`
`A.
`
`I haven't formed an expert
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`opinion on that topic.
`
`I can easily
`
`imagine that someone somewhere has
`
`investigated each of those aspects that I
`
`listed for investigating or determining the
`
`location of sound.
`
`QO.
`
`Is it true that you can use the
`
`concept of speaker recognition to determine
`
`the location of a sound source in space?
`
`MR. HEIDEMAN: Objection to
`
`form; relevance.
`
`A.
`
`Right. That goes back to the
`
`well-known cocktail party effect and
`
`Bregman's work in the '70s on auditory
`
`streaming.
`
`So if someone is able to
`
`recognize someone's voice as separate from
`
`the milieu,
`
`then often the human system
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2010 at 33-37; Ex. 2009, ¶ 36. Accordingly, Petitioner’s contention that the
`
`“sound source localization unit” is inherently disclosed in Reuss is incorrect. ¶ 37.
`
`
`
`In yet another alternative, Petitioner proposes to combine Reuss and the
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Dmochowski paper. Again, Petitioner throws mud at the wall, proposing at least
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`nine conclusory allegations to modify Reuss. If these references were in fact
`
`combinable, Petitioner would be able to articulate a straightforward reason to
`
`combine the references. Nevertheless, this proposed combination fails for several
`
`reasons. Id., ¶ 38.
`
`First, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine
`
`Reuss with any type of “sound source localization unit” because Reuss discloses a
`
`near-field microphone arrays in headsets for which the location of a user is within a
`
`fixed range or in close proximity. Reuss at 1:10-2:10; Ex. 2009, McAlexander Decl.,
`
`¶ 39. The entire background of Reuss discusses two problems with headsets (“Here,
`
`the ‘transmit signal’ refers to the audio signal from a near end user, e.g. a headset
`
`wearer, transmitted to a far-end listener.”) and echo and noise resulting from a
`
`signal’s delay in traveling over a telecommunications network (“In these
`
`applications, the delay through the telecommunications network can be hundreds of
`
`milliseconds, which can make even a small amount of acoustic echo annoying to the
`
`far-end user.). Reuss at 1:11-48; Ex. 2009, ¶ 39. This “double-talk” resulting from
`
`packets being sent over a network communications line is not the same problem
`
`addressed by the patent, which concerns a microphone array system for enhancing a
`
`target sound signal, for example a person’s speech, in the presence of other ambient
`
`signals. Id. Reuss’s disclosure lacks description for far-field microphone arrays,
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`which explains why Reuss does not disclose any sound source localization unit or
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`any other type of way to estimate the location of a sound source. Id. Reuss does not
`
`disclose using DOA to locate a sound source (as discussed above, Reuss proposes
`
`DOA to identify echo and noise only). Id. In summary, because Reuss describes a
`
`near-field application, because Reuss does not describe any “sound source
`
`localization or sound source localization unit, and because Reuss describes only
`
`finding direction of arrival of echoes and noise, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not be motivated to use Reuss as a starting point to meet the claimed invention
`
`and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Reuss
`
`with any reference using a sound source localization unit. Id., ¶ 40.
`
`
`
`Second, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to
`
`combine Reuss with Dmochowski. Id., ¶ 41. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, as
`
`discussed above, Reuss and Dmochowski are not directed to the same problems and
`
`do not disclose DOA determinations for sound source localization. Pet. at 19; Id., ¶
`
`41. As confirmed by Petitioner’s expert, Reuss discloses only using DOA to
`
`determine noise and echo. Reuss at 7:24-67; Ex. 2010 at 94-96; Ex. 2009, ¶ 41.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Reuss’s DOA determination to bridge the wide gap between
`
`Reuss and Dmochowski is misplaced because adding any Dmochowski features to
`
`Reuss’ DOA determination would be adding features to Reuss’ noise and echo
`
`determinations (rather than sound source). Id. Using Dmochowski’s SRP algorithm
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`to modify Reuss’ noise and echo determinations does not result in any teaching or
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`suggestion of sound source localization. Id.
`
`
`
`The remainder of Petitioner’s reasons to combine Reuss and Dmochowski fail
`
`for the same reasons and because they are based on mischaracterizations. Petitioner
`
`continually characterizes Dmochowski to disclose and compare SSL (sound source
`
`localization) algorithms. Pet. at 20. But there is not one instance of “sound source
`
`localization” or “sound source localization unit” in the Dmochowski reference. Ex.
`
`2009, ¶ 42. Dmochowski makes no reference to sound source localization. Id.
`
`Having no recitation of “sound source localization” or “sound source localization
`
`unit” in Reuss or Dmochowski, Petitioner’s misleading characterizations are not
`
`supported in fact.
`
`
`
`The author of the Dmochowski reference, Jacek Dmochowski, Ph.D., has
`
`submitted a Declaration in this proceeding confirming Amazon’s misinterpretations
`
`of the Dmochowski reference. Dr. Dmochowski is the first-named author of the
`
`asserted prior art reference entitled Direction of Arrival Estimation Using the
`
`Parameterized Spatial Correlation Matrix (“Dmochowski Paper”) (Ex. 1011).
`
`The Dmochowski Paper does not disclose or suggest any “sound source
`
`localization unit.” Ex. 2008, ¶¶ 14, 18. Dr. Dmochowski confirms that the
`
`Dmochowski Paper describes only experiments conducted using computer
`
`simulations of theoretical methods applied to simulated data on a personal computer,
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`and analysis of data previously captured in an IDIAP Smart Meeting Room. Ex.
`
`IPR2021-01331
`PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`2009, ¶ 44. He states that the work for the Dmochowski Paper did not utilize, and
`
`was not designed to work with any hardware, much less any DSP. Ex. 2008, ¶¶ 14,
`
`18.
`
`The Dmochowski Paper also does not disclose or suggest any of the required
`
`“digital signal processor” or “DSP” limitations or any “sound source localization
`
`unit” within or implemented by a “DSP.” Ex. 2008 ¶ 13; Ex. 2009, ¶ 45.
`
`Dr. Dmochowski confirms that the Dmochowski Paper is conceptual in nature,
`
`comprising theoretical derivations complemented with experiments on simulated
`
`data and that the experiments involved neither any digital signal processing of
`
`acoustic signals nor any particular implementation. Ex. 2008, ¶ 13; Ex. 2009, ¶ 45.
`
`Moreover, the Dmochowski Paper contains no disclosure of any implementing or
`
`integrating of any one or more of a “sound source localization unit” in a single
`
`“digital signal processor” or “DSP.” Ex. 2008, ¶ 17; Ex. 2009, ¶ 45. The concepts
`
`and theories in the Dmochowski Paper involved no hardware, much less any DSP
`
`technology to implement any sound source localization, beamforming, noise
`
`reduction, and/or echo cancellation units. Ex. 2008, ¶ 17; Ex. 2009, ¶ 45.
`
`Dr. Dmochowski’s testimony confirms that there is no reason or motivation
`
`to combine Dmochowski with Reuss, and there is no expectation of success for the
`
`proposed combinations. Ex. 2008, ¶¶ 19,21; Ex. 2009, ¶ 47. Dr. Dmochowski’s
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`testimony confirms that a person of ordinary skill in the art
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
