`
` __________________
`
`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