UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent No. 11,122,357
`Filing Date: August 5, 2013
`Issue Date: September 14, 2021
`
`Inventor: Gregory C. Burnett
`Title: FORMING VIRTUAL MICROPHONE ARRAYS USING DUAL
`OMNIDIRECTIONAL MICROPHONE ARRAY (DOMA)
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01124
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent No. 11,122,357
`Filing Date: August 5, 2013
`Issue Date: September 14, 2021
`
`Inventor: Gregory C. Burnett
`Title: FORMING VIRTUAL MICROPHONE ARRAYS USING DUAL
`OMNIDIRECTIONAL MICROPHONE ARRAY (DOMA)
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01124
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`THE ’357 PATENT ......................................................................................... 6
`II.
`III. THE ALLEGED PRIOR ART ........................................................................ 9
`A. Kanamori (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2004/0185804) ...................................................................................... 9
`B. McCowan (Iain A. McCowan et al., Near-Field Adaptive
`Beamformer for Robust Speech Recognition, Digital Signal
`Processing, Vol. 12, Issue 1 (2002), 87-106) ..................................... 11
`Elko (U.S. Patent No. 8,942,387) ....................................................... 13
`C.
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................14
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................14
`VI. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................15
`A.
`Legal Standard .................................................................................... 15
`B.
`GROUND 1: The Combination of Kanamori in View of
`McCowan and Elko Does Not Render Obvious Claims 1-20 ............ 17
`1.
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to
`Combine the Teachings of Kanamori, McCowan, and
`Elko to Arrive at the Claimed Invention ...................................17
`i.
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to
`Combine
`the Teachings of Kanamori and
`McCowan Because They Are Directed
`to
`Incompatible Applications and Would Not Have
`Resulted in an Improved System ................................... 17
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`ii.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to
`Combine
`the Teachings of McCowan with
`Kanamori Because Kanamori Does Not Teach that
`the Linear Responses of its Microphones to Noise
`Should Be as Similar as Possible ................................... 33
`iii. A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to
`Combine the Teachings of Elko with Kanamori
`Because the Addition of Elko’s “calibration filter”
`is Based on Hindsight Without Considering the
`References as a Whole ................................................... 38
`The Combination Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious
`“wherein the first virtual microphone and the second
`virtual microphones are distinct virtual directional
`microphones with substantially similar responses to
`noise and substantially dissimilar responses to speech” as
`Required by Independent Claims 1 and 20 ...............................46
`The Combination Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious
`“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” as
`Required by Claim 15 ...............................................................55
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................56
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 16
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 21
`Forest Lab’ys, LLC v. Sigmapharm Lab’ys, LLC,
`918 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 15
`Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-01059, Paper 1 (P.T.A.B. May 27, 2022) ........................................... 18
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 15
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 16
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Telefex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2008) ...................................................................................... 15, 16
`Lyft, Inc. v. Quartz Auto Techs., LLC,
`IPR2020-01450, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2021) ............................................. 42
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 16
`In re NuVasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 16
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .................................................................... 30, 39
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 21
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 16
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`2010
`2011
`
`2012
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description of Document
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement,
`Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-
`00985-ADA, Dkt. 23 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021)
`Order Denying Motion to Stay, Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00985-ADA, Dkt. 201 (W.D.
`Tex. Sept. 21, 2022)
`Order Resetting Markman Hearing, Dkt. 81, RFCyber
`Corp. v. Google LLC, No. 2:20-cv-00274-JRG, Dkt. 201
`(E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2022)
`Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 6:21-cv-00985-ADA, dated January 13, 2022
`Defendant Google LLC’s Preliminary Invalidity
`Contentions in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 6:21-cv-00985-ADA, dated April 6, 2022
`Docket Entry for Order denying Google LLC’s Motion to
`Transfer in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC, No.
`6:21-cv-00985-ADA, dated October 7, 2022
`Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D. taken
`March 29, 2023
`Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D. taken
`February 20, 2023
`Declaration of Andrew P. DeJaco
`Andrew P. DeJaco Curriculum Vitae
`Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D. taken
`April 3, 2023
`Sound Fields: Free versus Diffuse Field, Near versus Far
`Field, dated July 29, 2020. Captured at
`https://community.sw.siemens.com/s/article/
`sound-fields-free-versus-diffuse-field-near-versus-far-
`field#:~:
`text=Near%20Field%20versus%20Far%20Field,source
`%20will%20behave%20quite%20differently, on March 20,
`2023
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`Description of Document
`Pulakka, et al., Low-Frequency Bandwidth Extension of
`Telephone Speech Using Sinusoidal Synthesis and
`Gaussian Mixture Model, Interspeech, 28-31 August 2011
`Microsoft, Microphone Array Support in Windows, April
`21, 2014 Revision
`Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D. taken
`March 6, 2023
`
`Exhibit No.
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board should issue a Final Written Decision finding all of the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’357 Patent not unpatentable because Petitioner, Google LLC
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Google”), fails to show that its combination of Kanamori,
`
`McCowan, and Elko discloses or renders obvious the inventions of Claims 1-20.
`
`The ’357 Patent discloses and claims methods for noise suppression in dual
`
`omnidirectional microphone arrays. In the prior art, noise suppression systems used
`
`one microphone to obtain a speech-and-noise signal with a high signal-to-noise ratio
`
`by nulling out noise, and then subtracted a noise signal obtained from a second
`
`microphone to denoise the speech and noise signal. See, e.g., ’357 Patent, 1:41-62.
`
`The ’357 Patent criticized “[t]his approach [because it] is limited in the number of
`
`noise sources removed by the number of available nulls.” ’357 Patent, 1:60-62.
`
`The ’357 Patent improved on the prior art because “[t]he only null formed by
`
`the DOMA is one used to remove the speech of the user from [the second virtual
`
`microphone].” Id., 5:15-16 (emphasis added). This novel method was implemented
`
`using omnidirectional microphone arrays “to form two distinct virtual directional
`
`microphones which are configured to have very similar noise responses and very
`
`dissimilar speech responses.” Id., Abstract. The similarity of the ’357 Patent’s virtual
`
`microphones’ noise responses enable the noise to be cancelled while leaving the
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`speech response intact, “resulting in excellent noise suppression performance and
`
`minimal speech removal and distortion.” Id. at 8:15-18.
`
`None of the references cited by Petitioner teaches this approach. The
`
`references do not disclose two distinct virtual directional microphones which are
`
`configured to have substantially similar noise responses and substantially dissimilar
`
`speech responses, nor do they teach using a single null towards speech to obtain a
`
`noise signal with little speech leakage. Faced with the lack of any prior art with
`
`which to mount a meritorious challenge to the claims, Petitioner built a system that
`
`it contends yields the claimed noise and speech responses by cherry-picking aspects
`
`of three different references without legitimate motivations to combine.
`
`The primary reference, Kanamori, teaches two virtual microphones which
`
`have different responses to both speech and noise. Kanamori discloses a main
`
`microphone signal m1 for picking up a target sound in far-field and within “a range
`
`of ±90 degrees with respect to the front direction”, and a reference microphone m2
`
`which “inevitably includes a component of the target sound”. Ex. 1005, [0175],
`
`[0084].
`
`First, Petitioner advocates combining Kanamori with McCowan to add near-
`
`field noise suppression to Kanamori. But Petitioner’s obviousness combination
`
`requires two steps, both of which fail. First, Petitioner operates from the false
`
`assumption that, based on Kanamori alone, a POSITA would find it obvious to
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`implement Kanamori as a headset. This is nonsensical, as Petitioner admits
`
`Kanamori assumes a far-field speech source, such that the Kanamori system would
`
`not even function in a headset. Petitioner fails to identify any legitimate reason or
`
`motivation for a POSITA to modify Kanamori in this manner – as Mr. DeJaco
`
`explains, they would not. Ex. 2009, ¶ 43. Second, acknowledging that the Kanamori
`
`system would not function as a headset, but conclusorily assuming that a POSITA
`
`would nonetheless attempt to use it as one, Petitioner modifies Kanamori with
`
`cherry-picked portions of McCowan in an attempt to replicate Figures of the ’357
`
`Patent. But McCowan’s system uses an 11-microphone array that is 40 centimeters
`
`wide and 15 centimeters deep, much larger than any practical headset, and it is
`
`intended to perform only at low frequencies which cover only a small portion of the
`
`total frequency range for telephonic speech.
`
`The Petition does not explain why a POSITA would combine Kanamori’s
`
`system with McCowan’s system that provides only limited performance in the near-
`
`field and uses an incompatible microphone array. The Petition also fails to explain
`
`why a POSITA would look to Kanamori in combination with McCowan (as opposed
`
`to another near-field reference) in the first place. In any event, the reason is clear:
`
`McCowan provides Petitioner with a premise to add a delay to the reference
`
`microphone signal path of Kanamori needed for its hindsight reconstruction of the
`
`’357 Patent’s invention.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`Petitioner completes its reconstruction of the ’357 Patent’s noise suppression
`
`apparatus by arbitrarily selecting portions of Kanamori and McCowan for its
`
`hindsight reconstruction of the ’357 Patent’s invention, while ignoring the balance
`
`of Kanamori and McCowan’s disclosures which suggest entirely different
`
`approaches. For example, Petitioner’s motivation to combine—that Kanamori
`
`would improve the system because it teaches that the linear response to noise of the
`
`main signal and noise reference signal should be as similar as possible to each
`
`other—is not taught by Kanamori. Rather, Kanamori teaches that there should be a
`
`large difference in sensitivity between the main signal and voice reference signal.
`
`The Figures in Kanamori show that the directivity patterns of mic1 and mic2 are not
`
`as similar as possible to each other as Petitioner contends. Moreover, the Figures of
`
`Kanamori and McCowan both show at least two nulls in every linear response, but
`
`Petitioner’s reconstructed signal path inexplicably only generates responses with
`
`either zero or one null.
`
`Finally, Petitioner argues that the combined Kanamori-McCowan system
`
`yields a system where the first and second linear responses are substantially similar,
`
`while the first and second linear responses to speech are substantially different.
`
`Petitioner relies on unproduced scripts purportedly written by its expert,
`
`Dr. Vipperman, for this assessment. But Dr. Vipperman admits that he doesn’t even
`
`know what the terms “substantially similar” and “substantially dissimilar” mean. Ex.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`2007, Vipperman Dep. 48:20-50:24, Mar. 29, 2023. Despite a wealth of disclosure
`
`in the ’357 Patent, Dr. Vipperman ignored both the prior art references and invention
`
`as a whole, and simply proceeded with the goal of combining portions of prior art
`
`references to duplicate the directivity responses shown in Figs. 9-12 of the ’357
`
`Patent. Dr. Vipperman testified that unless two linear responses are either identical
`
`or match the exact plots in the ’357 Patent, he has no idea whether or not they are
`
`substantially similar. Dr. Vipperman admitted that he does not know whether a
`
`response with many nulls are substantially similar to one without any nulls and did
`
`not consider whether any of the many directivity responses discussed in Kanamori
`
`or McCowan based on which he constructed his signal path were substantially
`
`similar or dissimilar to one another. Thus, Dr. Vipperman’s Declaration is not
`
`credible, and the Petition fails to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
`
`first and second linear responses to noise are substantially similar, while the first and
`
`second linear responses to speech are substantially dissimilar.
`
`Based on these deficiencies, as detailed more fully herein, the Board should
`
`issue a Final Written Decision finding all the Challenged Claims of the ’357 Patent
`
`not unpatentable.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`II. THE ’357 PATENT
`The ’357 Patent, entitled FORMING VIRTUAL MICROPHONE ARRAYS
`
`USING DUAL OMNIDIRECTIONAL MICROPHONE ARRAY (DOMA) (Ex.
`
`1001), was issued on September 14, 2021, and was filed on August 5, 2013.
`
`The ’357 Patent discloses and claims methods for noise suppression in dual
`
`omnidirectional microphone arrays. Unlike “conventional arrays and algorithms,
`
`which seek to reduce noise by nulling out noise sources,” the ’357 Patent uses
`
`omnidirectional microphone arrays “to form two distinct virtual directional
`
`microphones which are configured to have very similar noise responses and very
`
`dissimilar speech responses.” ’357 Patent, Abstract. While “conventional multi-
`
`microphone systems attempt to increase the [signal-to-noise ratio] of the user’s
`
`speech by ‘steering’ the nulls of the system to the strongest noise sources, [t]his
`
`approach is limited in the number of noise sources removed by the number of
`
`available nulls.” Id., 1:57-62. Counterintuitively, in the ’357 Patent, “[t]he only null
`
`formed by the DOMA is one used to remove the speech of the user from [the second
`
`virtual microphone]”. Id. at 5:15-16 (emphasis added). However, the similarity of
`
`the ’357 Patent’s virtual microphones’ noise responses allow them to be cancelled
`
`while leaving the speech response intact, “resulting in excellent noise suppression
`
`performance and minimal speech removal and distortion.” Id. at 8:16-18.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`For example, the ’357 Patent discloses polar plots depicting similar noise
`
`responses which may be cancelled while leaving dissimilar speech responses intact.
`
`For instance, Figures 10 and 12 show the linear responses of virtual microphones V2
`
`and V1, respectively, to noise from a source at 1 meter:
`
`’357 Patent, 11:44-49; 12:44-48, Figs. 10, 12.
`
`Figures 9 and 11 show the linear responses of virtual microphones V2 and V1,
`
`respectively, to speech at a distance of 0.1 meter at an angle of zero degrees:
`
`
`
`’357 Patent, 11:40-44, 12:39-43, Figs. 9, 11.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`Figure 9 shows a null in the linear response of virtual microphone V2 to speech
`
`at zero degrees, “where the speech is typically expected to be located.” ’357 Patent,
`
`11:42-44. As shown in Figure 10, “[t]he linear response of V2 to noise is devoid of
`
`or includes no null, meaning all noise sources are detected.” Id., 11:47-49. This
`
`configuration ensures that virtual microphone V2 will detect all of the noise in front
`
`of the user so that it can be removed, which is an advantage over “conventional
`
`systems that can have difficulty removing noise in the direction of the mouth of the
`
`user.” Id., 11:56-60. In addition, “the superior noise suppression made possible using
`
`this system more than compensates for the initially poorer SNR,” or signal to noise
`
`ratio, of the virtual microphones. Id., 13:11-13. These spatial response differences
`
`in how the virtual microphones process a noise source at least 1 meter from the mic
`
`versus speech at .1 meter from the mic are due to the differences in the arriving
`
`acoustic waveforms of noise in the far-field and speech in the near-field of the
`
`receiving microphone sensors.
`
`The invention of the ’357 Patent further implements adaptive noise removal
`
`to suppress noise by combining two microphone signals by filtering and summing
`
`in the time domain and applying a varying linear transfer function between the
`
`acoustic signals. See ’357 Patent, 8:27-39.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`III. THE ALLEGED PRIOR ART
`A. Kanamori (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2004/0185804)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0185804 (“Kanamori”) (Ex.
`
`1005) was filed on November 18, 2003, and published on September 23, 2004.
`
`Kanamori is directed to “a microphone device and an audio player which detects a
`
`desired sound coming from a specific direction with noise being suppressed.” Ex.
`
`1005, ¶ [0002].
`
`Kanamori’s system comprises “a microphone device which detects a target
`
`sound coming from a direction of the target sound” which includes “a signal
`
`generating section, a determining section, an adaptive filter section, a subtracting
`
`section, and a noise suppressing section.” Id., ¶ [0019]. Kanamori’s “signal
`
`generating section” generates both a “main signal . . . with a sensitivity in the
`
`direction of the target sound and a noise reference signal . . . with a sensitivity higher
`
`in another direction than in the direction of the target sound.” Id.; Ex. 2009, ¶ 27.
`
`Kanamori’s noise reference signal includes signals from both the target sound
`
`and noise, requiring an “adaptive filter section” to generate “a signal indicative of a
`
`signal component of the target sound included in the noise reference signal.” Ex.
`
`1005, ¶ [0019]. Consistent with that approach, Kanamori’s noise reference signal
`
`(“m2”) includes multiple nulls:
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`
`
`Id. Fig. 18B; see also Figs. 1, 8, 10-12, 16B, 17B-C, 18C, 19, and 20; Ex. 2009, ¶ 28.
`
`Kanamori similarly contemplates a main signal (m1) with a different
`
`directivity pattern than its noise reference in the direction away from speech,
`
`generally including at least one null directed away from a speech source:
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 18B; see also Figs. 1, 8, 10-12, 14-15, 18B, and 20; Ex. 2009, ¶ 29.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`Kanamori assumes a far-field speech source. Ex. 2009, ¶ 30. In view of that
`
`assumption, a POSITA would understand Kanamori’s statement that its system can
`
`be “used for loudspeakers or calling” to refer to conference room microphones and
`
`the like, as opposed to near-field applications such as headsets. Ex. 2009, ¶ 30.
`
`Kanamori discusses at least 11 separate embodiments of its system, variously
`
`comprising up to six microphones. Ex. 1005, ¶ [00192]; Ex. 2009, ¶ 31.
`
`B. McCowan (Iain A. McCowan et al., Near-Field Adaptive
`Beamformer for Robust Speech Recognition, Digital Signal
`Processing, Vol. 12, Issue 1 (2002), 87-106)
`The paper, Near-Field Adaptive Beamformer for Robust Speech Recognition
`
`(“McCowan”) (Ex. 1006), was purportedly published in 2002.
`
`McCowan discloses an adaptive noise cancellation system for near-field
`
`speech sources, termed a near-field adaptive beamformer (“hereinafter “NFAB”) as
`
`shown in Figure 3:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`Ex. 1006 at 91, Fig. 3; Ex. 2009, ¶ 33.
`
`McCowan’s NFAB “is implemented using the standard generalized sidelobe
`
`canceler (GSC) system structure, where a near-field superdirective (NFSD)
`
`beamformer is used as the fixed upper-path beamformer to improve the low
`
`frequency performance.” Ex. 1006 at 87. The NFSD is used with “a near-field
`
`compensation unit” and “a standard generalized sidelobe canceling blocking matrix
`
`and adaptive filters.” Id. at 90-91. McCowan’s experimental system used an eleven-
`
`microphone array split into four sub-arrays associated with different frequency
`
`ranges. Id. at 96; Ex. 2009, ¶ 34.
`
`McCowan’s NFSD comprises an “upper path,” while “[t]he blocking matrix
`
`and adaptive filters essentially implement a conventional (nonsuperdirective)
`
`beamformer that adaptively focuses on the major sources of noise” comprising a
`
`“lower path.” Ex. 1006 at 98. The lower path generates a noise estimate which is
`
`used to cancel noise in the output signal of the NFSD in the upper path. Id., 87-91,
`
`93-96; Ex. 2009, ¶ 35.
`
`As shown in Figs. 6 & 7 below, McCowan’s upper path NFSD includes four
`
`nulls at 300 Hz, while its lower path NFAB includes two nulls at 300 Hz:
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006 at 98-99. The “overall beamformer directivity pattern” of McCowan’s
`
`NFAB also includes four nulls at 300 Hz. Id. at 100. Ex. 2009, ¶ 36.
`
`McCowan contemplates that the discussed beamformers will be applied in
`
`near-field environments, and specifically notes that it employs “a spherical
`
`propagation model in its formulation, rather than assuming a far-field model” Ex.
`
`1006 at 88; Ex. 2009, ¶ 37.
`
`C. Elko (U.S. Patent No. 8,942,387)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,387 (“Elko”) (Ex. 1009) was filed on March 9, 2007
`
`and issued on January 27, 2015. Elko is directed to “techniques for reducing wind-
`
`induced noise in microphone systems, such as those in hearing aids and mobile
`
`communication devices, such as laptop computers and cell phones.” Elko, 1:25-28.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`Elko utilizes a directional beamformer to process signals that include both
`
`speech and noise received at a two-element microphone array. Elko describes a
`
`calibration filter 1504 that is integral to its adaptive beamforming process. Elko, Fig.
`
`15; id. at 19:30-59 (“elements 1504-1514 form an adaptive beam former. . . .
`
`Calibration filter 1504 calibrates both electrical audio signals 1503 relative to one
`
`another. . . . In one embodiment, a first set of weight factors are applied to
`
`microphone signals 1503(1) and 1503 (2) to generate first calibrated signals 1505(1)
`
`and 1505(2) for use in the adaptive beam former. . . .”).
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Patent Owner believes that claim construction is not required to resolve any
`
`issues.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`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
`
`for formal education and additional formal education can substitute for work
`
`experience. Ex. 2009, ¶ 22. Petitioner agrees with this level of skill in the art. See
`
`Pet. at 6; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 24-25.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`VI. ARGUMENT
`A. Legal Standard
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`
`determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill
`
`in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so called secondary considerations. Graham v.
`
`John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). A claim is only
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Telefex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2008) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103).
`
`“An invention is not obvious simply because all of the claimed limitations
`
`were known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Instead, we ask ‘whether
`
`there is a reason, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would lead one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to combine the references, and that would also suggest a
`
`reasonable likelihood of success.’” Forest Lab’ys, LLC v. Sigmapharm Lab’ys, LLC,
`
`918 F.3d 928, 934 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “Of course, concluding that the references are
`
`within the scope and content of the prior art to be considered for obviousness does
`
`not end the inquiry. Graham makes clear that the obviousness inquiry requires a
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`determination whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a skilled
`
`artisan.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1050 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016).
`
`“Although the KSR test is flexible, the Board ‘must still be careful not to allow
`
`hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any explanation as to how or why
`
`the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.’” TriVascular,
`
`Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Further, an
`
`assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
`
`instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
`
`to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re
`
`Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); accord In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d
`
`1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that “conclusory statements” amount to an
`
`“insufficient articulation[] of motivation to combine”; “instead, the finding must be
`
`supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’” (citation omitted)); In re Magnum Oil Tools
`
`Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To satisfy its burden of proving
`
`obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner
`
`must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support
`
`the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`B. GROUND 1: The Combination of Kanamori in View of
`McCowan and Elko Does Not Render Obvious Claims 1-20
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to
`1.
`Combine the Teachings of Kanamori, McCowan, and
`Elko to Arrive at the Claimed Invention
`A POSITA would not have been motivated to combine Kanamori, McCowan,
`
`and Elko in the manner proposed by Petitioner for several reasons.
`
`i.A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to
`Combine the Teachings of Kanamori and McCowan
`Because They Are Directed
`to
`Incompatible
`Applications and Would Not Have Resulted in an
`Improved System
`A POSITA would not have been motivated to combine Kanamori and
`
`McCowan because Kanamori is directed to far-field applications and McCowan is
`
`directed to near-field applications for the low frequency content in the audio signal.
`
`Petitioner’s alleged motivation to combine suffers from at least three major flaws:
`
`(1) it proceeds from the nonsensical premise that a POSITA would implement
`
`Kanamori’s system as a headset, even as it acknowledges that Kanamori would not
`
`function for that purpose; (2) it seeks to modify Kanamori in a manner that would
`
`render it useless for its purpose of receiving far-field speech, by suppressing all far-
`
`field sounds; and (3) it relies on hindsight while failing to address significant
`
`differences and incompatibilities between the teachings of Kanamori and
`
`McCowan.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`The parties agree that Kanamori assumes that all sound sources are far-field
`
`whereas McCowan is directed to “a technique for improving noise cancellation when
`
`a speech source is in the near field.” Pet. at 9, 13; Ex. 2011 at 22:22-23:5; see also
`
`IPR2022-1060, Paper 1 at 9 (related proceeding in which Petitioner admitted that
`
`Kanamori assumes “both the speech source and the noise source(s) are in the far
`
`field.”) Petitioner and its expert have acknowledged in related proceedings that a
`
`POSITA would require a specific motivation to combine a far-field disclosure with
`
`a near-field disclosure but do not substantively address that requirement here.
`
`Compare Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC, IPR2022-01059, Paper 1 at 20
`
`(P.T.A.B. May 27, 2022) with Pet. at 29-31.
`
`Petitioner nonetheless argues that a POSITA would combine Kanamori’s
`
`microphone device with McCowan “in a device intended to receive near-field
`
`speech, such as a headset.” Pet. at 29. But neither reference discloses a headset, nor
`
`would a POSITA have been motivated to modify the far-field disclosure of
`
`Kanamori with the near-field disclosure of McCowan in the manner alleged by
`
`Petitioner, at least because the modification would render Kanamori incapable of
`
`processing far-field speech without severely degrading its quality. Ex. 2009, ¶ 43.
`
`The near-field is a region that is within approximately one wavelength from a
`
`sound source. Ex. 2009, ¶ 45; Ex. 2012. According to Figure DeJaco 1 below, to
`
`detect the full range of frequencies of speech, i.e., up to 3400 Hz, Ex. 2012 at 1181,
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01124
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`a speaker would need to be located within .1 meters, or 10 centimeters, of the
`
`microphones in a near-field application.
`
`Figure DeJaco 1
`
`
`
`Petitioner admits that Kanamori assumes a speech source in the far-field. Pet.
`
`at 13. Kanamori does not include any disclosure that would somehow place it within
`
`McCowan’s near-fi
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
