UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` __________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
` __________________
`
` GOOGLE, LLC,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` vs.
`
` JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` --------------------
`
` Case IPR 2022-01124
`
` U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`
` --------------------
`
` DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY S. VIPPERMAN, Ph.D.
`
` Monday, April 3, 2023 - 10:00 a.m.
`
`Reported by:
`
`Jennifer Miller, RMR, CRR, CCR
`
`Job No.: 6983
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 001
`
`
`
` __________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
` __________________
`
` GOOGLE, LLC,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` vs.
`
` JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` --------------------
`
` Case IPR 2022-01124
`
` U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`
` --------------------
`
` DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY S. VIPPERMAN, Ph.D.
`
` Monday, April 3, 2023 - 10:00 a.m.
`
`Reported by:
`
`Jennifer Miller, RMR, CRR, CCR
`
`Job No.: 6983
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 001
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` Deposition of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`held via Zoom, taken pursuant to notice, before
`
`Jennifer Miller, Registered Merit
`
`Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and
`
`Notary Public.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 002
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`
`Garret & Dunner, LLP
`
`271 17th Street, NW
`
`Suite 1400
`
`Atlanta, Georgia 30363
`
`(404)653-6400
`
`By: Robert High, Esq.
`
`robert.high@finnegan.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`Fabricant, LLP
`
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue
`
`Suite 206 South
`
`Rye, New York 10580
`
`(212)257-5797
`
`By: Jacob Ostling, Esq.
`
`jostling@fabricantllp.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 003
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
`
`WITNESS PAGE
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`Exhibit 1003 Declaration of Jeffrey S. 7
` Vipperman, PhD
`
`Exhibit 2006 3/29/2023 rough draft of 13
` transcript of Dr. Vipperman
`
`Exhibit 1009 U.S. Patent Number 25
` 8,942,387
`
`Exhibit 2007 2/20/2023 deposition 33
` transcript of Jeffrey S.
` Vipperman, PhD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 004
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Jacob Ostling
`
` from the law firm of Fabricant LLP on
`
` behalf the patent owner.
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: This is Robert
`
` High from Finnegan on behalf of the
`
` petitioner.
`
` JEFFREY VIPPERMAN, PhD, after
`
` having been first duly sworn, was
`
` examined and testified as follows:
`
` - - -
`
` E X A M I N A T I O N
`
` - - -
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Vipperman. Nice to
`
`see you again.
`
` A. Good morning. Same.
`
` Q. Could you please state your full name
`
`for the record.
`
` A. Sure. It's Jeffrey Stuart Vipperman.
`
` Q. All right. And have you been deposed
`
`other than since last Wednesday?
`
` A. I've been deposed prior to last
`
`Wednesday.
`
` Q. I understand that.
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 005
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` And I'm assuming that you're
`
`still familiar with the ground rules?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So do you understand that you're here
`
`today with respect to the deposition for IPR
`
`2022-1124?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And you understand that proceeding
`
`relates to U.S. Patent Number 11,122,357?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Okay. Do you understand that the
`
`'357 patent is a continuation of the
`
`'691 patent regarding which you were questioned
`
`last week?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. And in the 1124 petition, the
`
`petitioner inserted grounds of invalidity under
`
`obviousness based on Kanamori, Elko, and
`
`McCowan; is that right?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And you had not read the Kanamori
`
`reference prior to these proceedings, correct?
`
` A. Prior to the related proceedings,
`
`that's correct.
`
` Q. You also had not read the McCowan
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 006
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`reference prior to the related proceedings?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Had you ever read the Elko reference
`
`prior to the related proceedings?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Sir, you submitted a declaration in
`
`this proceeding, correct?
`
` A. I did.
`
` - - -
`
` (Whereupon, Exhibit 1003 was
`
` marked for identification.)
`
` - - -
`
` Q. Can you please go to the box and just
`
`confirm for me that Exhibit 1003 is an accurate
`
`copy of your declaration.
`
` A. It appears to be, yes.
`
` Q. And all of your obviousness opinions
`
`are included in that declaration?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So I have
`
` sufficient obviousness opinions in here.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Sir, did you disclose all of the
`
`facts underlying your obviousness opinions in
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 007
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`your declaration?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So I'm not sure I
`
` disclosed them all, but I disclosed a
`
` sufficient amount of obviousness opinions.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. So is it your testimony that there is
`
`some set of underlying information that you
`
`have not disclosed that you intend to rely on?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm not saying
`
` that. It's just I'm here to answer
`
` questions for you, and I will answer them
`
` to the best of my ability.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. So was that a no?
`
` A. Well, again, I've laid out -- what
`
`I've laid out here is, I think, a sufficient
`
`obviousness analysis to show that the patent is
`
`invalid over obviousness considering the prior
`
`art.
`
` Q. Sir, are you not able to answer yes
`
`or no as to whether you intend to rely on
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 008
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`information that is not disclosed in your
`
`declaration?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't anticipate
`
` having to do so. But, you know, again,
`
` I'm here to answer questions for you. I'm
`
` under oath. I'm here to answer your
`
` questions truthfully.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Sir, do you have any printed
`
`materials with you today?
`
` A. I don't.
`
` Q. That's fine. We can use the versions
`
`of the exhibits in the Box link.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. All right. Sir, I'm going to refer
`
`to your declaration.
`
` Sir, there is a Section 7B of
`
`your declaration titled "Simulations of Virtual
`
`Microphone Responses."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` I believe it begins on page 23,
`
`if that's helpful.
`
` A. Okay. I'm there.
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 009
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Q. And is this section identical to the
`
`simulation section that you testified regarding
`
`in your 1060 and 1061 declarations?
`
` A. I believe I did use identical
`
`sections here, yes.
`
` Q. And did you utilize the same Octave
`
`script to generate these simulated polar plots
`
`that you did -- that you described in the 1060
`
`and 1061 declarations?
`
` A. That, I don't recall. It was either
`
`the same script or a derivative of that script.
`
` Q. What would you have changed that
`
`would have made it derivative?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, I would need
`
` to see those -- scratch that.
`
` It would have been more so just
`
` to keep the scripts for each IPR
`
` proceeding distinct. But since they're
`
` identical, my guess is that I probably
`
` used the same script. But I just don't
`
` recall.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Sir, you included equations numbered
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 010
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`1 through 9 in that section, correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Other than Equation 6 and 7, do you
`
`recall any of those equations that are actually
`
`present in the Octave scripts that you wrote?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So 8 and 9 would
`
` be in there as well. They're just
`
` followed directly from Equations 6 and 7.
`
` These are equations directly for
`
` the virtual microphone responses for m1
`
` and m2.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Did you also include a polar function
`
`in order to generate a plot in that Octave
`
`script?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Do you recall any other plotting
`
`functions that you included in your script for
`
`the 1124 petition?
`
` A. I don't recall any.
`
` Q. Is it correct that you still don't
`
`know for sure whether the polar function in
`
`Octave applies an automatic smoothing?
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 011
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A. That's correct. I did not go back
`
`and check that.
`
` My intuition says probably not
`
`just because you'd want to plot the pure
`
`function without smoothing. There are
`
`different functions in Octave that allow you to
`
`do the smoothing before you plot a signal or
`
`figure.
`
` Q. Is it correct that the values you
`
`selected for the constants in that script are
`
`the ones that are listed in paragraph 53?
`
` A. So these are the constants I used to
`
`plot the resulting figures from Kanamori.
`
` Q. And you ran that simulation multiple
`
`times with different omega, Tau, and R-values;
`
`is that right?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So I used
`
` different omegas for one of the plots.
`
` And then R was either .1 or 1.
`
` And then Tau is what I've
`
` described in paragraph 53. Tau 1 was
`
` zero. Tau 2 is set to D over C, as
`
` indicated by Kanamori.
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 012
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. And the script that you wrote is not
`
`attached to your declaration anywhere, correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Sir, do you recall testifying
`
`regarding your understanding of the term
`
`"linear" on Wednesday?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. And you agree that, to be a linear
`
`response, a response must be able to satisfy
`
`the principle of superposition?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So I mentioned
`
` that superposition or the test that I
`
` described with two inputs and two outputs
`
` is a test for linearity.
`
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Give me one
`
` moment, sir. I'm going to mark an
`
` exhibit.
`
` - - -
`
` (Whereupon, Exhibit 2006 was
`
` marked for identification.)
`
` - - -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 013
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. All right. Sir, in the Box as
`
`Exhibit 2006 is a copy of the rough draft of
`
`your deposition transcript from last Wednesday.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Do you see that?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Could you please scroll down to
`
`page 17. Let me know when you're there.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. And you see that, when asked, "Sir,
`
`are you aware of any claims in the '691 patent
`
`where the term 'linear' is not recited?" you
`
`said:
`
` "ANSWER: So linearity -- there's a
`
` test for linearity that's based on
`
` superposition. And it's basically if you
`
` have an Input A that creates Response B
`
` and an Input C that creates Response D.,
`
` if you add A and B together, the response
`
` is going to be C plus D. So that's one
`
` definition of 'linearity.'"
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection. It's
`
` a rough draft.
`
` THE WITNESS: Actually, I'm
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 014
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` sorry. I'm still trying to find where
`
` you're reading.
`
` You said page 17?
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. That's correct, sir. It's the page
`
`with the number 17 on the top right corner.
`
` A. I'm not seeing that. I see page
`
`numbers at the -- every so often there's a page
`
`number. I was going by those.
`
` Oh, I see. 17 marks the
`
`beginning instead of the end of the page.
`
` Yeah. It should be -- if you
`
`add A and C together, the response is going to
`
`be B., as in Bob, plus D, as in David.
`
` So in other words, if you add
`
`the two inputs together and send them through a
`
`linear system, you're just going to get the sum
`
`of what their individual outputs would have
`
`been.
`
` Q. You recall giving that testimony last
`
`Wednesday?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Sir, is that the test for linearity
`
`that you applied in this proceeding?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 015
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So this is a test
`
` for linearity. I think, in the
`
` declaration, it was simpler than that just
`
` because the output is going to be linearly
`
` related to the input, which is sort of a
`
` subset of what I was describing here.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Is that -- sir, is that a subset or a
`
`superset?
`
` A. We were just using one input and one
`
`output, and it was clear that the output was
`
`linearly related to the input. So I guess I'd
`
`consider it a subset.
`
` Q. Sir, just to be clear, you have the
`
`same understanding of -- well, strike that.
`
` Your opinion regarding a
`
`POSITA's understanding of the term "linear
`
`response" has not changed since you were
`
`deposed last Wednesday, correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And your understanding of those
`
`terms, as used in the '357 and '691 patents, is
`
`the same?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 016
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Are you asking me
`
` if my understanding of linearity in the
`
` '691 is the same as the '357? If so, then
`
` yes.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. And, sir, in -- excuse me.
`
` In evaluating whether a response
`
`is linear, you viewed both the input and the
`
`output as an acoustic pressure; is that right?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So the linear
`
` response indicates a factor that is
`
` applied to an acoustic pressure in a
`
` specific direction.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. So, sir, that's not quite what I
`
`asked.
`
` You just testified that, in
`
`order to be linear, the input and the output of
`
`a response have to be proportional; is that
`
`right?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 017
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` THE WITNESS: Right. I said
`
` that the output would be linearly related
`
` to the input.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. And as you applied that test in this
`
`proceeding, both the input and the output that
`
`you looked at are acoustic pressures, correct?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So if we talk in
`
` general terms, the input and the outputs
`
` don't have to be the same quantity because
`
` the linear system could actually transform
`
` those into a different domain.
`
` In the cases of -- specific to
`
` the '357, I used the linear response to
`
` determine what to multiply the pressure by
`
` in order to get the response -- the
`
` pressure response in a particular
`
` direction.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Sir, is it still correct that you
`
`don't know whether it's possible for any
`
`response drawn on a polar plot with a linear
`
`scale to not be linear under the definition you
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 018
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`applied?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I can't think of a
`
` case where a linear response would
`
` represent a linear quantity, but -- and
`
` who's to say that it may not be possible?
`
` I'm not sure.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Sir, and you do know that polar plots
`
`can have either a linear or a log scale?
`
` A. Yes, I'm aware of that. If you had a
`
`logarithmic scale, you would just convert back
`
`to a linear quantity to apply the gain.
`
` Q. So it's your understanding that a
`
`given response can be plotted on either a log
`
`or a linear scale polar plot?
`
` A. Yes. That doesn't change the fact
`
`that linear response is a linear concept. It's
`
`just how you're presenting the data.
`
` If you plot on a logarithmic
`
`scale, that sort of compresses the scale a
`
`little bit. You get a little bit different
`
`viewpoint.
`
` Q. All right. Sir, and you're still not
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 019
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`aware of the Kanamori reference ever using the
`
`word "linear" in the context of a polar plot or
`
`a response?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. And, sir, what were you just
`
`searching?
`
` A. Kanamori.
`
` So I don't see where "linear"
`
`shows up in Kanamori. But they would be linear
`
`for the same reasons as the '357. And by
`
`"they," I mean, the linear responses.
`
` Q. And, sir, throughout your
`
`declaration, you cite to Kanamori's Figure 17A
`
`for the signal path that you relied on to
`
`combine microphone directivities, correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And you also cite to a number of
`
`paragraphs throughout Kanamori for your
`
`understanding of that system, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And among others, you cited to
`
`paragraph 163 for your understanding of the
`
`constructions of Kanamori's m1 and m2; is
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 020
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`that right?
`
` A. Do you have a particular paragraph in
`
`mind?
`
` Q. Let's look at paragraph 43 of your
`
`declaration.
`
` I'm sorry. Let me reask the
`
`question.
`
` Among others, you cited to
`
`paragraphs 167 and 168 of Kanamori for your
`
`understanding of the construction of m1 and
`
`m2 and Kanamori's preference regarding
`
`directivities?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And if you look at paragraph 51 of
`
`your declaration, you also cite to
`
`paragraphs 166 and 170 for your understanding
`
`of Kanamori's computation of equations for
`
`responses?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: You said
`
` paragraph 51?
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. That's right, sir.
`
` A. Can you please repeat the question.
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 021
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Q. Sure.
`
` If we look at paragraph 51, you
`
`also cite to Kanamori's paragraph 166 for your
`
`understanding of Kanamori's computation of
`
`equations for microphone responses?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Same objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: So I believe here
`
` I'm referring to -- this paragraph's
`
` related to the delays Tau 1 and Tau 2. I
`
` relied on textbooks that I referenced in
`
` my expertise in order to perform the
`
` modeling of the linear responses.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. All right. Sir, and referring to
`
`page 54 of your declaration, you also rely on
`
`Kanamori's -- excuse me.
`
` You also relied on Kanamori's
`
`paragraph 151 for the spacing of Kanamori's
`
`microphones; is that right?
`
` A. In paragraph 54, I did rely on
`
`paragraph 151 for the microphone spacing.
`
` Q. All right. Sir, and you understand
`
`that Kanamori assumes a far-field speech
`
`source?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 022
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I do. In
`
` paragraph 55, I also rely on Taenzer
`
` for -- oh, I'm sorry. Never mind.
`
` Scratch that.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. And, sir, you understand that the
`
`McCowan reference assumes a near-field speech
`
`source?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And you understand that McCowan's
`
`main objective is to improve the low-frequency
`
`directivity of a conventional adaptive
`
`beamformer?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So as I pointed
`
` out last time, low frequency depends upon
`
` spacing and wavelength. And at this
`
` microphone spacing, low frequency, our
`
` near-field response can go up to a few
`
` thousand hertz. I believe your expert
`
` pointed this out.
`
` And I relied on McCowan for the
`
` teachings that, in the near field, you can
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 023
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` end up with phase misalignment and
`
` amplitude scaling issues. And he
`
` describes how to correct for that, and I
`
` applied that in my obviousness analysis.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Sir, when you say "this microphone
`
`spacing," what spacing are you referring to?
`
` A. The one that we were just reading, 1
`
`to 5 centimeters. And I chose sort of a
`
`midpoint, 2 centimeters. So I was referring to
`
`my microphone spacing of 2 centimeters.
`
` Q. Sir, the -- strike that.
`
` The Kanamori reference does not
`
`use a beamformer, correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And the McCowan reference does use an
`
`adaptive beamformer?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So Kanamori uses
`
` directional microphones or directional
`
` virtual microphones in order to create
`
` directionality in the system.
`
` McCowan uses a beamformer to
`
` point towards the target sound in a very
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 024
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` similar fashion. And then -- and so
`
` they -- they have similar goals with
`
` similar results.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Sir, Kanamori doesn't use the word
`
`"virtual microphone," does it?
`
` A. So it does not. But I applied the
`
`definition from the '357 patent of virtual
`
`microphone. And, indeed, Kanamori has virtual
`
`microphones m1 and m2.
`
` Q. And, sir, I'm going to refer to the
`
`Elko reference now, which is in the Box as
`
`Exhibit 1009.
`
` - - -
`
` (Whereupon, Exhibit 1009 was
`
` marked for identification.)
`
` - - -
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Do you see that?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. So Elko does use an adaptive
`
`beamformer, correct?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So Elko does
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 025
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` describe Figure 22 as an adaptive
`
` beamformer, but I relied on Figure 15
`
` merely for the teachings of the
`
` calibration filter from Elko.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Sir, I'm going to direct you to
`
`column 19 of Elko to the sentence beginning on
`
`line 31.
`
` Can you please let me know when
`
`you're there.
`
` A. I'm there.
`
` Q. And you see Elko's statement that
`
`"Audio system 1500 is a two-element microphone
`
`array that combines adaptive beamforming with
`
`wind-noise supression to reduce wind noise
`
`induced into the microphone output signals"?
`
` A. I do see that.
`
` Again, I was largely relying on
`
`Figure 15 for the calibration filter teachings.
`
` Q. Sir, you understand that Elko's
`
`primary objective is to reduce wind noise,
`
`correct?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So one goal of the
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 026
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Elko reference is to reduce noise, much
`
` like Kanamori in the '357 patent.
`
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: I move to
`
` strike that answer as nonresponsive.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Sir, can you go to column 1 and Elko,
`
`and let me know when you're there.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Do you see that, under "Field of the
`
`Invention," Elko states: "The present
`
`invention relates to acoustics and, in
`
`particular, to techniques for reducing
`
`wind-induced noise in microphone systems"?
`
` A. I see where it says that.
`
` Q. So, sir, the primary objective of
`
`Elko is to reduce wind-induced noise in
`
`microphone systems, correct?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form. Asked and answered.
`
` THE WITNESS: So Elko, like
`
` Kanamori in the '357, has as an objective
`
` to reduce noise, in this case wind noise.
`
` Again, I mainly relied on
`
` teachings from Figure 15 about the
`
` calibration filter. So that's the
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 027
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` teachings from this reference that I was
`
` using. But it has similar goals to the
`
` other references.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. So you did not rely on Elko's
`
`teaching regarding any noise reduction specific
`
`to wind noise or adaptive beamforming; is that
`
`right?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So I mainly relied
`
` on Elko for the teachings of the
`
` calibration filter.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Sir, the microphone signals input
`
`into Elko's Figure 15 include both speech and
`
`wind noise, correct?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: The signals would
`
` include speech and wind noise.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. And Elko doesn't disclose isolating
`
`wind noise in any signal distinct from speech,
`
`does it?
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 028
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I
`
` understand that question.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Are you aware of any disclosure in
`
`Elko of isolating wind noise in any signal
`
`distinct from speech?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Same objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: Did you have a
`
` specific section of Elko in mind?
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Sir, I'm asking you about the
`
`understanding of Elko that you applied in your
`
`declaration.
`
` Are you aware of any disclosure
`
`in Elko of isolating wind noise in any signal
`
`distinct from speech?
`
` A. I just don't recall. Again, I relied
`
`on the calibration sections primarily in this
`
`reference.
`
` Q. All right. And, sir, Elko -- strike
`
`that.
`
` The Elko system does not apply
`
`any noise supression during nonspeech periods,
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 029
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`correct?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form. Scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: So, again, I
`
` relied on the teachings about calibration
`
` from Elko primarily. But I remember it
`
` forms an electronic wind-noise absorber
`
` that extensively works when there's wind
`
` noise.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Sir, are you able to say whether or
`
`not the Elko system applies any noise
`
`supression during nonspeech periods?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form. Scope.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. So, sir, it's been a few minutes
`
`since I asked that question.
`
` Are you able to provide an
`
`answer as to your understanding of Elko in your
`
`declaration without reviewing the whole
`
`reference?
`
` A. I was just trying to provide an
`
`accurate response.
`
` What I do remember is that the
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 030
`
`
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`noise supression is dependent upon the wind
`
`noise. I don't recall whether it was with
`
`respect to speech being present or not.
`
` Again, I relied mainly on the
`
`calibration teachings from this reference.
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Are we getting
`
` pretty close to a breaking point, Jake?
`
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Yeah, I think
`
` I'll be done with this line in another
`
` five or ten minutes assuming we don't
`
` research the whole reference every answer.
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Any chance we
`
` can break earlier than that?
`
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: I have, like,
`
` three questions left in this line.
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Okay.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. Sir, does Elko discriminate between
`
`speech and noise through anything other than
`
`the direction in which it receives a signal?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form. Scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: So in Figure 10,
`
` he does show a difference to some power
`
` ratio for convective fluid at 5 meters per
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 031
`
`
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` second and talks about how there's a wide
`
` difference between the acoustic and
`
` turbulent sum-difference power ratios.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. And, sir, Elko's sum-difference power
`
`ratio is dependent on the direction in which a
`
`sound source is received, correct?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: I mean, I think
`
` the algorithm would be agnostic to
`
` direction. But directionality can come
`
` into play if you're using directional
`
` microphones or a directional microphone
`
` array.
`
`BY ATTORNEY OSTLING:
`
` Q. I mean, ultimately, Elko's system
`
`relies on detecting sound sources at the
`
`broadside of its array as speech, correct?
`
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Objection.
`
` Form. Scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: So, generally,
`
` Elko creates first-order linear responses
`
` using a microphone pair, like in Figure 1.
`
` And the nulls and the maximum
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2011, IPR2022-01124
`Page 032
`
`
`
`Page 33
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` directivity interactions would be along
`
` the axis of those two microphones.
`
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: All right.
`
` We can go ahead and take a
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
