`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR2022-01124
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JEFFREY S. VIPPERMAN, PH.D.
`
`
`Page 1 of 109
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 2
`A.
`Education ............................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Experience ............................................................................................. 3
`C.
`Compensation ........................................................................................ 7
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 7
`V.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 9
`A.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 9
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 10
`C. Obviousness ......................................................................................... 10
`’357 PATENT ................................................................................................ 13
`A.
`Specification ........................................................................................ 13
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 17
`VII. ANALYSIS OF PETITION GROUNDS ...................................................... 18
`A. Overview of the Asserted References ................................................. 18
`1.
`Kanamori (Ex. 1005) ................................................................ 18
`2. McCowan (Ex. 1006) ................................................................ 20
`3.
`Elko (Ex. 1009) ......................................................................... 22
`Simulations of Virtual Microphone Responses .................................. 23
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 34
`
`B.
`C.
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`c.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`d.
`
`A. Kanamori, Elko, and McCowan Render Obvious Claims 1-20 .......... 35
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 35
`a.
`[1P] “A device, comprising:” ......................................... 35
`b.
`[1A]: “a first virtual microphone comprising a first
`combination of a first microphone signal and a
`second microphone signal, wherein the first
`microphone signal is generated by a first physical
`microphone and the second microphone signal is
`generated by a second physical microphone;” ............... 35
`[1B]: “a second virtual microphone comprising a
`second combination of the first microphone signal
`and the second microphone signal,” ............................... 40
`[1C]: “wherein the second combination is different
`from the first combination,” ........................................... 42
`[1D]: “wherein the first virtual microphone and the
`second virtual microphone are distinct virtual
`directional microphones with substantially similar
`responses to noise and substantially dissimilar
`responses to speech; and” ............................................... 43
`[1E]: “a signal processor coupled with the first and
`second microphone signals and operative to
`combine the first and second microphone signals
`by filtering and summing in the time domain, to
`apply a varying linear transfer function between
`the first and second microphone signals, and to
`generate an output signal having noise content that
`is attenuated with respect to speech content.” ................ 65
`Dependent Claims 2-14 ............................................................. 79
`a.
`Claim 2: “The device of claim 1, wherein the
`signal processor comprises one or more digital
`signal processors (DSPs).” ............................................. 79
`
`2.
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`Claim 3: “The device of claim 1, wherein the noise
`content comprises acoustic noise and the speech
`content comprises human speech.” ................................. 80
`Claim 4: “The device of claim 1, wherein the
`signal processor is operative to add a delay to the
`first microphone signals.” ............................................... 81
`Claim 5: “The device of claim 4, wherein the
`signal processor is operative to raise the delay to a
`power that is proportional to a time difference
`between arrival of the speech at the first virtual
`microphone and arrival of the speech at the second
`virtual microphone.” ....................................................... 81
`Claim 6: “The device of claim 4, wherein the
`signal processor is operative to raise the delay to a
`power that is proportional to a sampling frequency
`multiplied by a quantity equal to a third distance
`subtracted from a fourth distance, the third
`distance being between the first physical
`microphone and a speech source of the speech and
`the fourth distance being between the second
`physical microphone and the speech source.” ................ 84
`Claim 7: “The device of claim 1, wherein the first
`and second physical microphones comprise
`omnidirectional microphones.” ...................................... 86
`Claim 8: “The device of claim 1, wherein the first
`and second physical microphones are included in a
`microphone array.” ......................................................... 86
`Claim 9: “The device of claim 1, wherein the first
`physical microphone and the second physical
`microphones are disposed along an axis and are
`separated from each other by a first distance.” .............. 86
`Claim 10: “The device of claim 9, wherein a
`midpoint of the axis is a second distance from a
`speech source that generates the speech, wherein
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`the speech source is located in a direction defined
`by an angle relative to the midpoint.” ............................ 87
`Claim 11: “The device of claim 10, wherein the
`first virtual microphone is formed by subtracting
`the second microphone signal from the first
`microphone signal.” ........................................................ 90
`Claim 12: “The device of claim 10, wherein the
`second virtual microphone is formed by
`subtracting the first microphone signal from the
`second microphone signal.” ............................................ 91
`Claim 13: “The device of claim 1, wherein the first
`virtual microphone is formed by subtracting the
`second microphone signal from a delayed version
`of the first microphone signal.” ...................................... 93
`m. Claim 14: “The device of claim 1, wherein the
`second virtual microphone is formed by
`subtracting the first microphone signal from a
`delayed version of the second microphone signal.” ....... 94
`Independent Claim 15 ............................................................... 96
`a.
`[15P]: “A device, comprising:” ...................................... 96
`b.
`[15A]: “a first virtual microphone comprising a
`first combination of a first microphone signal and a
`second microphone signal, wherein the first
`microphone signal is generated by a first physical
`microphone and the second microphone signal is
`generated by a second physical microphone;” ............... 96
`[15B]: “a second virtual microphone comprising a
`second combination of the first microphone signal
`and the second microphone signal,” ............................... 96
`[15C]: “wherein the second combination is
`different from the first combination,” ............................ 96
`
`l.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`[15D]: “wherein the first virtual microphone and
`the second virtual microphone are distinct virtual
`directional microphones with substantially similar
`responses to noise and substantially dissimilar
`responses to speech;” ...................................................... 97
`[15E]: “a virtual microphone array including the
`first and second virtual microphones and having a
`single null oriented in a direction toward a source
`of speech; and” ............................................................... 97
`[15F]: “a signal processor coupled with the first
`and second microphone signals and operative to
`combine the first and second microphone signals
`by filtering and summing in the time domain, to
`apply a varying linear transfer function between
`the first and second microphone signals, and to
`generate an output signal having noise content that
`is attenuated with respect to speech content.” ................ 99
`Dependent Claims 16-20 ........................................................... 99
`a.
`Claim 16: “The device of claim 15, wherein the
`source of speech comprises human speech.” .................. 99
`Claim 17: “The device of claim 15, wherein the
`second virtual microphone includes a second linear
`response to speech and the single null comprises a
`region of the second linear response to speech
`having a measured response level that is lower
`than a measured response level of any other region
`of the second linear response to speech.” ....................... 99
`Claim 18: “The device of claim 15, wherein the
`first virtual microphone is formed by subtracting
`the second microphone signal from a delayed
`version of the first microphone signal.” .......................101
`Claim 19: “The device of claim 15, wherein the
`second virtual microphone is formed by
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`v
`
`Page 6 of 109
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`e.
`
`subtracting the first microphone signal from a
`delayed version of the second microphone signal.” .....101
`Claim 20: “The device of claim 15, wherein the
`first and second physical microphones are included
`in a microphone array.” ................................................101
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Page 7 of 109
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert by Google LLC
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Google”) in connection with an inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 11,122,357 (“the ’357 patent”) (Ex. 1001). I have prepared this declaration in
`
`connection with Google’s Petition (Paper 1).
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, this document contains my opinions about the
`
`technology claimed in claims 1-20 of the ’357 patent (the “Challenged Claims”)
`
`and Google’s ground of unpatentability for these claims.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`3.
`
`This declaration considers the Challenged Claims of the ’357 patent.
`
`Below I set forth the opinions I have formed, the conclusions I have reached, and
`
`the bases for these opinions and conclusions.
`
`4.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have assumed that the priority date of the
`
`’357 patent is June 13, 2007, which is the filing date of U.S. Application
`
`No. 60/934,551, as listed on the cover page of the ’357 patent. Ex. 1001, Cover. I
`
`understand the ’357 patent purports to claim the benefit of the filing date of this
`
`application. Ex. 1001, Cover, 1:8-19.
`
`5.
`
`Based on my experience, knowledge of the art, analysis of the
`
`asserted ground and references, and understanding that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) would have had of the claims, it is my opinion that the
`
`1
`
`Page 8 of 109
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’357 patent would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of 2007, based on the asserted ground.
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I believe that I am well qualified to serve as a technical expert in this
`
`matter based upon my educational and work experience, which I summarize below.
`
`I understand that my curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of
`
`my background, experience, patents, and publications, is attached as Ex. 1004.
`
`A. Education
`
`7.
`
`I received my Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Duke University
`
`in 1997. Previously, I obtained Master of Science and Bachelor of Science degrees
`
`in Mechanical Engineering from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
`
`University (“Virginia Tech”) in 1992 and 1990, respectively. My dissertation at
`
`Duke was titled “Adaptive Piezoelectric Sensoriactuators for Multivariable
`
`Structural Acoustic Control.” My dissertation addressed the development of a
`
`hybrid analog/digital circuit and adaptation method to permit piezoelectric
`
`transducers to be used simultaneously as a sensor and an actuator. Doing so
`
`provides an array of truly “co-located” sensor/actuator pairs with minimum phase,
`
`such that stability of the multichannel feedback system is greatly enhanced. These
`
`were demonstrated for active structural acoustic control.
`
`2
`
`Page 9 of 109
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`8.
`
`Experience
`
`I am a Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Bioengineering, and
`
`Communication Sciences and Disorders. I also currently serve as Vice Chair of the
`
`Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science Department at the University of
`
`Pittsburgh.
`
`9.
`
`I first began research in acoustics and sound systems in 1989 as an
`
`undergraduate student. My masters research concerned adaptive feedforward
`
`control of broadband structural vibration, and my Ph.D. research concerned the
`
`development of arrays of self-sensing piezoelectric transducers that could be used
`
`for active structural-acoustic control. I have also developed a number of algorithms
`
`for active control of noise and vibration.
`
`10. My acoustics research has included a mix of theory, analytical and
`
`numerical modeling, and measurement of acoustic and vibration systems. Aside
`
`from the previously mentioned array research, my acoustics research has included
`
`transducer and controls development, transducer modeling/fabrication/testing,
`
`analog/digital signal processing, embedded systems, active and passive noise and
`
`vibration control, development of various types of metamaterials (e.g., phononic
`
`crystals, resonant lattices, layered media, and pentamode materials) for acoustical
`
`filtering and cloaking, development of noise classifiers to discern types of military
`
`noise or for incorporation into surgical devices as surgical aids, development of
`
`3
`
`Page 10 of 109
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`thermoacoustic engines, refrigerators, and sensors (e.g., a wireless, “in-core”
`
`thermoacoustic sensor that can measure temperature and neutron flux inside a
`
`nuclear reactor). Additional topics of my research include developing structural
`
`acoustic models (i.e., concerned with sound radiation from vibrating structures) of
`
`sound transmission through finite cylinders, various methods of passive and active
`
`control of noise, vibration, and structural-acoustic radiation (i.e., controlling sound
`
`radiation of a vibrating structure by introducing additional vibrations to make it an
`
`inefficient radiator), hearing loss prevention, and modeling of ear response and
`
`damage to the inner ear for impulsive and ultrasound sources. During the early
`
`stages of the microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) revolution, I worked on
`
`producing some of the earliest silicon-on-insulator (MEMS) microphones through
`
`electronic fabrication methods.
`
`11. As a professor, I have developed and taught three graduate courses
`
`directly related to acoustics and signal processing, including “Measurement and
`
`Analysis of Vibroacoustic Systems,” “Fundamentals of Acoustics and Vibration,”
`
`and “Measurement and Analysis of Random Data from Dynamical Systems.” The
`
`latter two courses cover acoustical arrays. I have also taught three mechanical
`
`measurements courses, a dynamic systems and introductory undergraduate and
`
`graduate mechanical vibrations course, and an advanced (Ph.D. candidate level)
`
`vibrations course, as well as related courses such as controls, undergraduate and
`
`4
`
`Page 11 of 109
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`graduate dynamics, kinematics, mechanical measurements, and electrical circuits.
`
`Further, I have developed and given a short course at the American Controls
`
`Conference on “Active Control of Sound, Vibration, and Structural Acoustics,” as
`
`well as two other short courses for local industry on “Acoustical Theory and
`
`Measurements” and “Noise and Vibration Measurements.”
`
`12.
`
`I also have a consulting business (Blue Ridge Consulting) and am
`
`Vice President of Atlas Medtech, LLC, a University of Pittsburgh licensed startup
`
`company.
`
`13.
`
`I have worked on Department of Defense (“DoD”) projects as a
`
`Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigator on projects that involve
`
`acoustic arrays. In one project, a microphone array and cross-correlation methods
`
`(time difference of arrival or TDOA methods) were used to determine the bearing
`
`angle for acoustic plane waves associated with various forms of military and
`
`natural noise. Multiple arrays were used to triangulate the location of the noise
`
`source. In conjunction, we developed machine learning algorithms to classify the
`
`noise source, which provided additional help for noise management programs
`
`around U.S. military bases. A corporate partner commercialized the array and
`
`research into a product. In another project, I helped co-develop a method for
`
`localizing sound using small arrays of unidirectional (e.g., “shot-gun”)
`
`microphones. The methods worked in both the time and frequency domains.
`
`5
`
`Page 12 of 109
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`Another military project funded by DoD involved the development of 2-D and 3-D
`
`source parametric arrays for steering heterodyned ultrasound for communications
`
`systems.
`
`14. Some of my professional activities include chairing an American
`
`National Standards Institute (ANSI) Committee to revise the ANSI S1.1 Acoustical
`
`Terminology Standard. I am also a Fellow in the American Society of Mechanical
`
`Engineers (ASME) and a former Chair of the Noise Control and Acoustics
`
`Division of ASME. I also chaired the Per Bruel Gold Medal in Acoustics Award
`
`selection committee for ASME. I have organized nine conference sessions on
`
`acoustics and was a Track Organizer (over multiple conference sessions) for nine
`
`ASME conferences, as well as Technical Program Chair over all acoustics-related
`
`conference sessions at the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress
`
`and Exposition (IMECE) in 2009. I also participated on a National Research
`
`Council (National Academies) panel to evaluate the hearing loss prevention
`
`component of the mining program for the National Institute for Occupational
`
`Safety and Health (NIOSH) research programs.
`
`15.
`
`I have published numerous technical papers, book chapters, reports,
`
`and the like related to acoustic sensors and acoustic signal processing.
`
`6
`
`Page 13 of 109
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`C. Compensation
`
`16.
`
`I am being compensated for services provided in this matter at my
`
`usual and customary rate of $400 per hour plus travel expenses. My compensation
`
`is not conditioned on the conclusions I reach as a result of my analysis or on the
`
`outcome of this matter, and in no way affects the substance of my statements in
`
`this declaration.
`
`17.
`
`I am not aware of any financial interest that I have in the Patent
`
`Owner, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates. Likewise, I am not aware of any
`
`financial interest that I have in Petitioner, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates. I
`
`do not have any financial interest in the ’357 patent or any proceeding involving
`
`the ’357 patent.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`18.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have analyzed the following, including the
`
`’357 patent, its file history, the prior art listed in this declaration and in the Petition
`
`ground, and the materials listed in this declaration.
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357 to Burnett (“the ’357 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0185804 to Kanamori
`et al. (“Kanamori”)
`
`7
`
`Page 14 of 109
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1006 Iain A. McCowan et al., Near-field Adaptive Beamformer for Robust
`Speech Recognition, 12 Digital Signal Processing 87-106 (2002)
`(“McCowan”)
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0244698 to Dugger et
`al. (“Dugger”)
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 8,942,387 to Elko (“Elko”)
`
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 7,171,008 to Elko (“Elko ’008”)
`
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0031328 to Elko et al.
`(“Elko ’328”)
`
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0152167 to Taenzer
`(“Taenzer”)
`
`Ex. 1013 Certified Translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
`Publication No. H11-18186 and Translation (“Ikeda”)
`
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0120537 to Burnett et
`al. (“Burnett”)
`
`Ex. 1017 Lawrence E. Kinsler et al., Fundamentals of Acoustics, John Wiley &
`Sons, Inc. (4th ed. 2000)
`
`Ex. 1018 M. P. Norton et al., Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration Analysis for
`Engineers, Cambridge Univ. Press (2d ed. 2003)
`
`
`
`19. My opinions are based on my experience, knowledge of the relevant
`
`art, the documents identified above, and the documents discussed in this
`
`declaration.
`
`20. Ex. 1017 is a true and accurate copy of excerpts from Lawrence E.
`
`Kinsler et al., Fundamentals of Acoustics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (4th ed. 2000).
`
`8
`
`Page 15 of 109
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`21. Ex. 1018 is a true and accurate copy of excerpts from M. P. Norton et
`
`al., Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration Analysis for Engineers, Cambridge Univ.
`
`Press (2d ed. 2003).
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`22.
`
`I am not a lawyer. My understanding of the legal standards to apply in
`
`reaching the conclusions in this declaration is based on discussions with counsel
`
`for Petitioner, my experience applying similar standards in other patent-related
`
`matters, and my reading of the documents submitted in this proceeding. In
`
`preparing this declaration, I sought to faithfully apply these legal standards to the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`23.
`
`I have been instructed that the terms appearing in the ’357 patent
`
`should be interpreted in view of the claim language itself, the specification, the
`
`prosecution history of the patent, and any relevant extrinsic evidence. The words of
`
`a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention, which I am assuming here is June 13, 2007. While claim
`
`limitations cannot be read in from the specification, the specification is the single
`
`best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. I have followed these principles in
`
`9
`
`Page 16 of 109
`
`

`

`
`reviewing the claims of the ’357 patent and forming the opinions set forth in this
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`declaration.
`
`B.
`
`24.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`I understand a person of ordinary skill in the art is determined by
`
`looking at (i) the type of problems encountered in the art; (ii) prior art solutions to
`
`those problems; (iii) rapidity with which innovations are made; (iv) sophistication
`
`of the technology; and (v) educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`25.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would
`
`have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer
`
`science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar field, and
`
`approximately three years of industry or academic experience in a field related to
`
`acoustics, speech recognition, speech detection, or signal processing. Work
`
`experience can substitute formal education and additional formal education can
`
`substitute for work experience. I was at least a POSITA as of June 13, 2007.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`26.
`
`I have been told that under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim may be
`
`obvious if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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.
`
`10
`
`Page 17 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`27.
`
`I have been told that a proper obviousness analysis requires the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`following:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claims at issue;
`
`Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`Considering evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness
`
`(if available).
`
`28.
`
`I have been told that the relevant time for considering whether a claim
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art is the time of
`
`invention. For purposes of my analysis, I assumed that the date of invention for the
`
`Challenged Claims is June 13, 2007.
`
`29.
`
`I have been told that a reference may be modified or combined with
`
`other references or with the person of ordinary skill’s own knowledge, if the
`
`person would have found the modification or combination obvious. I have also
`
`been told that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to know all the
`
`relevant prior art, and the obviousness analysis may take into account the
`
`inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`employ.
`
`11
`
`Page 18 of 109
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`30.
`
`I have been told that whether a prior art reference renders a patent
`
`claim obvious is determined from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. I have also been told that, while there is no requirement that the prior art
`
`contain an express suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed
`
`invention, and while a suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the
`
`claimed invention may come from the prior art as a whole or individually and may
`
`consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would employ, as filtered through the knowledge of one skilled in the art,
`
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements and must
`
`include some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
`
`legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`31.
`
`I have been told that there is no rigid rule that a reference or
`
`combination of references must contain a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to
`
`combine references. But I also have been told that the “teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation” test can be used in establishing a rationale for combining elements of
`
`the prior art. I have also been told to be aware of distortions caused by hindsight
`
`bias, and that reading into the prior art the teachings of the invention at issue is
`
`improper.
`
`32.
`
`I am aware that a claim may be obvious where the claim represents
`
`nothing more than a combination of prior art elements according to understood
`
`12
`
`Page 19 of 109
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`methods that yields predictable results. I am further aware that a claim may be
`
`obvious where it merely involves the simple substitution of one known element for
`
`another to achieve predictable results. I am additionally aware that it may be
`
`obvious to try a particular combination of claim features if selecting them requires
`
`merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success.
`
`VI.
`
`’357 PATENT
`A.
`
`Specification
`
`33. The ’357 patent discloses a dual omnidirectional microphone array
`
`(“DOMA”) that provides noise suppression using “virtual microphones” from a
`
`pair of physical microphones that “are configured to have very similar noise
`
`responses and very dissimilar speech responses.” Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:63-67,
`
`5:8-9. Virtual microphones include those “constructed using two or more
`
`omnidirectional microphones and associated signal processing.” Ex. 1001, 6:7-10.
`
`34. The ’357 patent also discloses adaptive noise cancellation by
`
`combining the two microphone signals (e.g., Mic1, Mic2) by filtering and
`
`summing in the time domain. Ex. 1001, 8:27-30. The adaptive filter used to
`
`provide this filtering “uses the signal received from a first microphone of the
`
`DOMA to remove noise from the speech received from at least one other
`
`microphone of the DOMA, which relies on a slowly varying linear transfer
`
`13
`
`Page 20 of 109
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`function between the two microphones for sources of noise.” Ex. 1001, 8:30-35.
`
`“Following processing of the two channels of the DOMA, an output signal is
`
`generated in which the noise content is attenuated with respect to the speech
`
`content.” Ex. 1001, 8:35-39.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 1.
`
`35. The ’357 patent further discloses calibrating the two physical
`
`microphones using a filter 𝛼(cid:4666)𝑧(cid:4667) “so that their response to a source located the same
`system can train filter 𝛼(cid:4666)𝑧(cid:4667) to calibrate the microphones based on the known
`
`distance away [is] identical for both amplitude and phase.” Ex. 1001, 16:48-50,
`
`14:42-44. For example, when the user is producing speech with little noise, the
`
`spatial relationships between the two microphones with respect to each other and
`
`14
`
`Page 21 of 109
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`the speech source. Ex. 1001, 16:47-17:10. The ’357 patent discloses that this
`
`calibration ensures that the adaptive noise cancellation “remove[s] as much speech
`
`as possible.” Ex. 1001, 17:1-13.
`
`36. The ’357 patent also discloses forming two virtual microphones using
`
`the two physical microphones, where the first virtual microphone is a “virtual
`
`directional ‘speech’ microphone” and “has no nulls,” and the second virtual
`
`microphone is a “virtual directional ‘noise’ microphone” and “has a null for the
`
`user’s speech.” Ex. 1001, 6:1-4, 6:7-10. The virtual microphones are constructed
`
`so that the second virtual microphone “includes relatively small speech response,”
`
`the first virtual microphone “includes sufficient speech response,” and the first and
`
`second virtual microphones include “substantially similar noise response.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:44-55.
`
`37. Figures 9 and 11 depict the linear responses of the second and first
`
`virtual microphones, respectively, to a speech source. Ex. 1001, 11:40-42, 12:39-
`
`41, FIGs. 9, 11. In these figures, the speech source is assumed to be in the near
`
`field and located at 0° and 0.1 m from the microphone array. Ex. 1001, 13:14-17,
`
`17:21-23.
`
`15
`
`Page 22 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIGs. 9, 11.
`
`38. Figures 10 and 12 depict the linear responses of the second and first
`
`virtual microphones, respectively, to a noise source. Ex. 1001, 11:44-49, 12:44-46,
`
`FIGs. 10, 12. In these figures, the noise source is assumed to be in the far field and
`
`at all angles located 1.0 meter from the microphone array. Ex. 1001, 1