throbber
DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _________________________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _________________________________________
` GOOGLE LLC,
` Petitioner,
` v.
` JAWBONE INNOVATIONS LLC,
` Patent Owner.
` _________________________________________
` Case No. IPR2022-01060
` Case No. IPR2022-01061
` Case No. IPR2022-01124
` US Patent No. 8,503,691
` US Patent No. 11,122,357
` _________________________________________
` REMOTE DEPOSITION OF ANDREW P. DeJACO
` Wednesday, June 21, 2023
` 9:01 a.m. (EDT)
`
` (This proceeding was conducted via Zoom.
` All participants appeared remotely.)
`
`STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY:
`Deanna J. Dean, RDR, CRR
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1024
`GOOGLE v. JAWBONE
`IPR2022-01124
`
`Page 1 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`2
`
` Wednesday, June 21, 2023
` 9:01 a.m. EDT
`
` Remote deposition of ANDREW P. DEJACO,
` held via Zoom videoconference, before Deanna J.
` Dean, a Registered Diplomate Reporter, Certified
` Realtime Reporter, and licensed court reporter
` of the state of New Hampshire.
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 2 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner:
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
` 271 17th Street, NW, Suite 1400
` Atlanta, GA 30363-6209
` (404) 653-6564
` BY: ROBERT K. HIGH, ESQ.
` robert.high@finnegan.com
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
` 1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800
` Reston, VA 20190-6023
` (571) 203-2778
` BY: DANIEL C. COOLEY, ESQ.
` daniel.cooley@finnegan.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner:
`FABRICANT LLP
` 411 Theodore Fremd Avenue
` Rye, NY 10580
` (646) 797-4354
` 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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 3 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`4
`
` I N D E X
`
` Examination Page
` ANDREW P. DEJACO
` By Attorney High 6
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`Number Description Ref.
` Exhibit 2007 DeJaco Declaration for 1060 IPR 11
` Exhibit 2007 DeJaco Declaration for 1061 IPR 11
` Exhibit 1001 US Patent No. 11,122,357 13
` Exhibit 1001 US Patent No. 8,503,691 13
` Exhibit 1005 US Patent Application 15
` Publication 2004/0185804A1
` (Kanamori)
` Exhibit 1003 Vipperman Declaration 46
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 4 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
` THE REPORTER: Here begins the remote
` deposition of Andrew P. DeJaco, taken in the
` matter of Google LLC, Petitioner, v. Jawbone
` Innovations LLC, Patent Owner, pending in the
` United States Patent and Trademark Office before
` the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Case Nos.
` IPR2022-01060, IPR2022-01061, and IPR2022-01124.
` Today's date is June 21, 2023. The time
` is now 9:01 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
` This deposition is being held remotely by
` Zoom videoconferencing. I am the licensed
` stenographic court reporter, Deanna Dean,
` presenting on behalf of Henderson Legal
` Services.
` Will counsel please introduce themselves
` and state whom they represent, beginning with
` the party noticing the deposition.
` ATTORNEY HIGH: This is Robert High on
` behalf of the petitioner.
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Jacob Ostling from the
` law firm of Fabricant LLP on behalf of patent
` owner.
` THE REPORTER: At this time, do all
` parties agree to waive any objection, now or in
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 5 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
` the future, to me swearing in the witness
` remotely?
` ATTORNEY HIGH: Yes.
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Yes.
` ANDREW P. DEJACO,
`a witness called for examination, having been first
`duly sworn according to law, was deposed and
`testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY ATTORNEY HIGH:
` Q. Good morning, Mr. DeJaco. Can you please
`state your full name and address for the record.
` A. Andrew Paul DeJaco, and my address is 6198
`Inverurie Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
` Q. Is that where you're located today?
` A. That's where I'm located today, yes.
` Q. Do you understand you're under oath,
`meaning you must testify truthfully today as if you
`were before a judge?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there any reason that would prevent you
`from testifying truthfully today?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you been -- well, I know you've been
`deposed before because I've deposed you.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 6 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
` So how many times have you been deposed?
` A. So before we -- before these cases started
`up, about four times, in about -- maybe this is my
`fourth time for these proceedings. So let's say
`eight as an estimate.
` Q. Just like last time, I'm going to go over
`just a few ground rules before we begin, just to
`make sure we're on the same page.
` So we have a court reporter who will be
`recording your answers as if you were giving them
`in court, so I ask that you answer the questions
`truthfully and to the best of your knowledge.
`Okay?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And please respond in an audible answer,
`not a gesture or a nod.
` A. Yes.
` Q. If you do not understand any of the
`questions that I ask today, please tell me. If you
`answer a question, I will assume that you
`understand my question.
` Do you agree?
` A. I agree.
` Q. I'll try to take breaks every hour or so,
`but if at any point you need a break, please let me
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 7 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
`know. But if a question is pending, I'd just ask
`that you please answer my question before we take a
`break.
` Is that okay?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there anyone else in the room with you
`today?
` A. No.
` THE REPORTER: I believe you said "no,"
` but it didn't come through.
` A. No. Yes. I mean, yes, I said "no."
` Q. Do you have a phone with you today?
` A. I do, but I have it down in the side here,
`and it's on vibrate mode.
` Should I turn it completely off?
` Q. Vibrate is fine if you don't think that it
`will bother you. I'd just ask that while we're on
`record today, I'd ask that you don't look at it, if
`that's all right.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you have any email or instant messenger
`programs running on the computer that you're using
`for today's deposition?
` A. I do not.
` Q. Just during the course of the deposition
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 8 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
`today, I'd ask that you please continue not having
`any of those email or instant messenger-type
`applications open.
` Is that all right?
` A. Yes.
` I -- I have a folder that I made up here
`that, when I look to the right, I have a big screen
`to the right of me, and I have my three
`declarations, the two patents, and the three prior
`arts. So I have all that kind of ready so I can
`find it quickly, if that's okay.
` Q. Excellent. That sounds good.
` So do you understand that for this
`deposition today, we're here to discuss
`declarations you submitted in IPR2022-01060 and
`IPR2022-01061, which involve US Patent No.
`8,503,691, as well as IPR2022-01124, which involves
`US Patent No. 11,122,357?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is it okay if I refer to US Patent No.
`8,503,691 as the '691 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And same thing for the other one: Is it
`okay if I refer to US Patent No. 11,122,357 as the
`'357 patent?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 9 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is it all right if I refer to
`IPR2022-01060 as the 1060 IPR?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is it all right if I refer to
`IPR2022-01061 as the 1061 IPR?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And, lastly, is it all right if I refer to
`IPR2022-01124 as the 1124 IPR?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When did you first become involved in
`these cases?
` A. Back in February -- the January-February
`time frame of this year, 2023.
` Q. And when did you first review the '691
`patent?
` A. It was one of the later ones. So that
`would have been, you know, maybe late March, early
`April.
` Q. What about for the '357 patent?
` A. I would say that was about the same time
`frame.
` Q. I'm going to go ahead and put all of your
`declarations into the chat.
` And so let's first look at your
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 10 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
`declaration for the 1060 IPR, which is stamped as
`Exhibit No. 2007 for that IPR. Right?
` A. Yeah. There's two of them stamped 2007.
` Q. Right.
` A. I'm downloading the first one, maybe.
` Q. Yeah. So -- yeah. For the 1060 and 1061
`IPRs, both of those are stamped as Exhibit No.
`2007. Right?
` A. I think so. I can't see the whole file
`name, but let me download it and then I'll . . .
` Yeah. The first one here, Exhibit 2007,
`says it was for 1060. So I should -- and it's --
`I've got -- like I said, I'm going to download it
`into that same folder. Yours says "signed," so I
`can distinguish it from the ones I have.
` Should I download all these now? Or
`should I just --
` Q. Yes.
` A. Okay. Let's see this one.
` Q. I want to have you confirm that these are
`the declarations that you submitted in these IPRs.
` A. They look correct.
` Q. Are all of your opinions related to each
`IPR included in any prospective declaration?
` A. Yes.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 11 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
` Q. Did you write your own declarations?
` A. I wrote -- these are all my opinions.
`Some of the sections I wrote and handed them to
`counsel. Some of them, after we talked, they --
`you know, they typed out, sent to me, and I
`reviewed.
` Q. About how long did you spend working on
`your declaration for the 1060 IPR?
` A. The 1060 IPR, I'd say, you know, was
`probably about five hours. There's a lot of these
`that were -- are very similar. So, you know,
`they're -- in some sense, there was duplication.
` Q. About how much time did you spend for the
`1061 IPR?
` A. I would say about the same amount.
` Q. What about for the 1121 IPR?
` A. I would say about the same amount. Now,
`again, there's duplication between the three. So,
`you know, that's why we're talking about all three
`of them at the same time today.
` Q. I understand that there's duplications in
`each of your declarations.
` So in preparing your declarations, did you
`review each of the petitions that were submitted
`for each IPR?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 12 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`13
`
`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. Yes.
` Q. So you've read all three petitions that
`were -- that are at issue for these cases?
` A. Yes. I've been through those materials.
` Q. And did you review the prior art that's
`cited in each of the petitions?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you review Dr. Vipperman's
`declarations that were submitted in support of each
`petition?
` A. I did.
` Q. Are all of the legal principles that you
`relied on for your analysis included in each
`declaration?
` A. Yes, they are.
` Q. I'm going to drop into the chat the '691
`patent, and I'm also going to copy into the chat a
`copy of the '357 patent.
` And the '691 patent is marked as Exhibit
`1001 for each of the 1060 and 1061 IPRs. Right?
` A. I'll check.
` Yes.
` Q. Was that "yes"?
` A. Yes. They're -- okay. So could you ask
`your question again.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 13 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
` Q. Yes. Sure.
` Sorry. It seems sometimes when you're
`talking, it's not picking up like the first
`syllable or two. So I'll just try and catch that
`whenever that happens.
` A. Okay.
` Q. So -- yeah.
` I guess my question was, the '691 patent
`is marked as Exhibit 1001 for each of the 1060 and
`1061 IPRs. Right?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And the '357 patent is marked as Exhibit
`1001 for the 1124 IPR. Right?
` A. The '357 is marked as Exhibit 101 -- 1001,
`yes.
` Q. Is it your understanding that the '691
`patent and the '357 patent share a common
`specification?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So for our deposition today, is it okay if
`I just use the '691 patent to discuss what's
`disclosed in the specification for both the '691
`and the '357 patents?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Let's pull up the '691 patent.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 14 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
` A. Okay.
` Q. Let's take a look at Figures 10 and 12.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Figure 12 of the '691 patent depicts the
`linear response of a first virtual microphone to
`noise. Right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And Figure 10 of the '691 patent depicts
`the linear response of the second virtual
`microphone to noise. Right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Would you say that these linear responses
`to noise are substantially similar?
` A. Yes, I would.
` Q. Now, I am placing a copy of the reference
`that I'll refer to as "Kanamori" into the chat.
`And the one that I placed in the chat is the -- is
`Exhibit 1005 from the 1060 IPR.
` Do you understand that this same reference
`is also included in the 1061 and the 1124 IPRs as
`well?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. So if I refer to this reference as
`"Kanamori" today, will you understand that I'm
`referring to this reference, the identical
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 15 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
`exhibits, and the 1061 and 1124 IPRs as well?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let's pull up your declaration for the
`1060 IPR, and turn to your summary of Kanamori that
`starts at paragraph 29.
` A. Okay. 1060. Got it.
` And what paragraph? You're saying the
`introduction to the prior art at the beginning?
` Q. Right. You have a section VIIA that's
`labeled "Kanamori." It starts at the beginning of
`paragraph 29.
` Just let me know when you're there.
` A. Yeah, I got it.
` Q. And your other declarations include a
`identical section as well. Right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In paragraph 30, you state that 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.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In the embodiments relied on for the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 16 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
`obviousness analysis in the petition, both the main
`signal and the noise reference signal have a
`sensitivity that's higher in another direction than
`in the direction of the target sound. Right?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. Could you ask that question again.
` Q. Sure.
` So in the -- I guess I'll back up.
` So in the petitions, the obviousness
`analysis primarily relies on what I'll call the
`Figure 17 embodiment. Correct?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Same objection.
` A. What was the figure? 17, did you say?
` Q. Yeah, Figure 17.
` A. Yes. We -- that was a figure we looked
`at. In fact, if you want to look at that figure
`and ask your question, maybe it would be --
` Q. Yeah, sure. If you want to pull up
`Kanamori and take a look at that embodiment as well
`as the disclosure, that's fine.
` I guess I'll re-ask my question.
` So in that embodiment, both the main
`signal and the noise reference signal have a
`sensitivity that's higher in another direction than
`in the direction of the target sound. Right?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 17 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. I'm just going to look at that, the figure
`17 here. Okay.
` These things, I have to rotate them.
`Okay.
` Looking at Figure 17 now, I see that both
`mics m1 and m2 -- now -- ask your question again.
`Ask your question. I think I -- I just want to
`make sure I get it right.
` Q. So the main signal in this embodiment is
`m1. Right?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And the noise reference signal is m2.
`Right?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And both m1 and m2 have a sensitivity
`that's higher in another direction than in the
`direction of the target sound. Right?
` A. That's correct. From looking at this
`Figure 17 -- I'm looking at 17B -- that's correct.
` Q. And that's described in the descriptions
`of Kanamori's embodiments as well. Right?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. It's certainly shown in this figure as far
`as the description. I'd have to look further at
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 18 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
`the description, if you wanted to point me to that.
` Q. Fine. I'll move on.
` So going back to your declaration now, in
`paragraph 31, you've included Figure 18C.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Why did you pick Figure 18C to include in
`this paragraph?
` A. I mean, this was one of the examples.
`There's lots of different realizations of the
`Kanamori method, you know. And you'll see
`underneath there I also talk about 17B and C. This
`was just -- this was another figure we used that
`showed, you know, showed the differences between
`the main mic and the noise reference mic and the
`number of nulls.
` Q. So you understand that Figure 18C is
`depicting a directivity pattern of m2?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And that's corresponding to a different
`embodiment than what's depicted in Figure 17A.
`Right?
` A. Let me just look at Kanamori a bit here.
` Could you ask your question again.
` Q. Sure. So the Figure 18C -- let me start
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 19 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
`over.
` Figure 18C is depicting the directivity
`pattern into -- for a different embodiment than the
`embodiment that's depicted in Figure 17A. Right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. On paragraph 32 of your declaration, you
`state that 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 the speech source.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Kanamori also discloses that it is
`preferable that the only difference between the
`main signal and the noise reference signal is in
`the direction of the target sound. Right?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. I believe I saw that in the spec, but I
`would like to -- I mean, if you want to take me
`to -- I mean, into the Kanamori spec to -- or I
`could search for it here.
` Q. Yeah. If you want to look in Kanamori.
`Start at paragraph 168.
` A. I need to rotate that. Okay. 168.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 20 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
` Q. Look at the first two sentences in that
`paragraph.
` A. Yes. Go ahead and ask your question
`again.
` Q. Do you agree that Kanamori also discloses
`that it is preferable that the only difference
`between the main signal and the noise reference
`signal is in the direction of the target sound?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. Yes, there's a -- in the Kanamori spec,
`he -- he -- his algorithm relies on the fact that
`there's a null in the direction of the target
`signal in the noise reference mic versus not having
`that, you know, that null in the main signal.
` And that's -- his algorithm needs that in
`order for the -- that has to be that difference in
`that area of the directivity pattern for the
`determination algorithm to work correctly.
` Q. And Kanamori also discloses that for all
`directions other than the direction of the target
`sound, it's preferable that there is no difference
`in the sensitivity between the main signal and the
`noise reference signal. Right?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. Yes, for all the directions not where
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 21 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
`the -- that -- you know, the main direction of the
`target signal. He indicates he would want the
`responses to be similar.
` Q. Going back to your declaration now.
`Paragraph 34, you state that Kanamori discusses at
`least 11 separate embodiments of its system
`variously comprising up to six microphones.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Can you identify any embodiment in
`Kanamori that relies on more than two microphones?
` A. I'm going to have to review the spec here.
`Let's see. I believe he makes the statement in
`here that it could be used for more than two
`microphones.
` I'd have to spend more time on this, but
`in just looking at, you know, Figure 23, I see, you
`know, a microphone numbered 5 and 6 on it. If you
`want me to spend more time reading it, I could --
`ask your question again. Can I identify an
`embodiment?
` Q. Yeah. Can you identify any embodiment in
`Kanamori that relies on more than two microphones?
` A. It wasn't pertinent to my opinion whether,
`you know, how many microphones were in the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 22 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
`embodiments. That wasn't the main embodiment that
`we were -- that I was giving my opinion about.
` I mean, if you want me to dig through this
`and find the embodiment, it's going to take a
`little while. I could do that if you'd like.
` Q. I guess I'm just trying to understand
`where this statement came from, where you said that
`Kanamori discloses at least 11 separate embodiments
`of its system variously comprising up to six
`microphones.
` So I guess just looking at each of the
`figures, all of the figures in Kanamori are
`depicted as including only two microphones. Right?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. Okay. So I'm reading at paragraph 206 in
`Kanamori: "In another embodiment, the following
`structure can be applied. Figure 23 is an
`illustration showing a part of the" -- then it --
`"In Figure 23, a fifth microphone unit 5 [and] a
`sixth microphone unit 6 ... are similar in
`structure."
` Q. Right. So that --
` A. And that demonstrated -- that's where the
`reference to the -- an embodiment with more than
`two microphones was taken from.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 23 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
` Q. So in that embodiment that you're reading
`from, it's not contemplating having six microphones
`within that one embodiment, is it?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. I mean, it says using a fifth microphone
`and a sixth microphone. I interpret that as
`meaning that there was a -- that there's a fifth
`microphone and a sixth microphone, that there was a
`one to fourth microphone.
` Q. So if you look back at, let's say, Figure
`17A, that embodiment refers to a third microphone
`unit and a fourth microphone unit. Right?
` A. Yes, it does.
` Q. I'm sorry. I didn't hear your response.
`You said, "Yes, it does"?
` A. Ask your question again.
` Q. Yeah. Sorry. Sometimes your answers are
`a little quiet at first.
` So if you look at -- look back at Figure
`17A, that embodiment refers to a third microphone
`unit and a fourth microphone unit. Right?
` A. They're labeled as 3 and 4, yes.
` Q. And if you look at Figure 1, that figure
`is depicting a first microphone unit and a second
`microphone unit. Right?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 24 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
` A. That's correct.
` Q. So each of those figures are only
`depicting two microphones. Right?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. In their individual configuration, they
`are. And, again, all my -- there was nothing in my
`opinion that relied on more than the two-microphone
`configuration.
` Q. So you agree that all of the figures
`depicted in Kanamori rely on only two microphones.
`Right?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. The figures -- the figures in Kanamori,
`all the figures in Kanamori just show two
`microphones.
` Q. Take a look at paragraph 16 of Kanamori.
`This paragraph says, "Therefore, an object of the
`present invention is to provide a microphone device
`capable of stably operating even under noise from a
`plurality of noise sources in the actual use
`environment and also achieving a high S/N ratio."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes. Yes.
` Q. S/N ratio refers to signal-to-noise ratio.
`Right?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 25 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
` A. That's correct.
` Q. This paragraph isn't limiting the type of
`microphone device that Kanamori can be incorporated
`into, is it?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. That paragraph doesn't -- doesn't limit
`the type of microphone.
` Q. Kanamori is not limited to conference room
`microphones, is it?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. The Kanamori algorithm, his invention
`is -- the application is for -- the application of
`his invention is for far-field communication
`applications.
` Now, your question was -- is it limited to
`conference room? Was that the question?
` Q. Right. Kanamori does not limit its
`disclosures to conference room microphones, does
`it?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. No.
` Q. You said "no." Right?
` A. No, it's -- any far-field application
`communication system, that's the application for
`his -- his invention to increase the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 26 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
`signal-to-noise ratio.
` Q. So Kanamori is also not limited to
`loudspeakers. Right?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. Again, the term -- sorry. I think it's
`properly -- the proper thing is for it to be for
`far-field -- far-field applications, where
`typically you would have, like if I'm in a
`conference -- like right now, actually, you know,
`I'm talking into my laptop. You know, there's a
`distance -- let me back up.
` So it's for far-field applications. Okay?
`Is it limited to a loud speaker? There's a speaker
`that's typically -- it's for a speaker that's not,
`like, close to your ear. You know, if you've got a
`phone situation like this, I would say that's a --
`you know, it's coupled in your ear, you've got a
`microphone close to your mouth, that's a near-field
`application.
` If you're in a conference room, there's a
`speaker that's delivering more volume more like a
`loudspeaker.
` Q. Kanamori does say that it can be applied
`to various use requirements. Right?
` A. Yes.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 27 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
` Q. One of those use environments is calling.
`Right?
` A. Right. Making a phone call, right. But
`in that calling application, you know, it's
`restricted to, again, a far-field calling
`application.
` Q. The headset was a type of microphone
`device known before the '691 patent's priority
`date. Right?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Headsets were commonly used for calling
`before the '691 patent's priority date?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When using a headset, speech is typically
`in the near field. Right?
` A. Correct.
` Q. So in that context, would anything in the
`far field be considered unwanted noise?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. If -- if you are making a call on a
`headset --
` Q. Do you mind starting over? I think your
`answer kind of cut out at the beginning.
` A. Okay. Ask your question again.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 28 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`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
`
` I don't know if my internet's bad. I
`don't have anything -- is it -- I guess you don't
`know whose internet's bad. I'm not getting that
`thing come up where it says, you know, "internet
`unstable."
` So go ahead.
` THE REPORTER: It's more like a
` noise-canceling thing. It just doesn't pick up
` the first couple words. I can see your mouth
` move but the sound doesn't come through right
` away.
` Q. Yeah. I'll ask my question again.
` So when using a headset, since speech is
`typically in the near field, is anything in the far
`field considered unwanted noise?
` A. Yes. If you're using a headset, noise in
`the background would be in the far field.
`Typically, that's why people use headsets: to get
`the mic closer to the mouth.
` Q. So you would want to design the headset so
`that it picks up near-field speech with a high
`signal-to-noise ratio. Right?
` ATTORNEY OSTLING: Objection to form.
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And you would not want to design the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 29 of 111
`
`

`

`DeJaco, Andrew P.
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`30
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`2

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket