Filed on behalf of Petitioners by:
`
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`
`Thomas A. Franklin, Reg. No. 63,456
`
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`(617) 646-8000 Phone
`
`(617) 646-8646 Fax
`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SONY GROUP CORPORATION (JAPAN), SONY CORPORATION OF
`AMERICA, SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC, SONY
`PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT INC., SONY ELECTRONICS INC., and
`VERANCE CORPORATION
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MZ AUDIO SCIENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01544
`Patent No. 7,289,961
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`MANDATORY NOTICES ...................................................................................... xi
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest .......................................................................... xi
`B.
`Related Matters .................................................................................... xi
`1.
`United States Patent & Trademark Office ................................ xi
`2.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware ....................... xi
`3.
`U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ......... xi
`Counsel and Service Information - § 42.8(b)(3) and (4) ..................... xi
`C.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 1
`II.
`III. GROUNDS ...................................................................................................... 2
`IV.
`’961 PATENT .................................................................................................. 2
`A.
`Background ........................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Embodiments ......................................................................................... 3
`1.
`First Embodiment ........................................................................ 4
`2.
`Second Embodiment ................................................................... 5
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”) ...................................... 7
`C.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 7
`D.
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION ......................................................................... 8
`V.
`VI. GROUND 1: SRINIVASAN, CABOT AND KUDUMAKIS
`RENDER CLAIMS 1-10 OBVIOUS .............................................................. 8
`A.
`Srinivasan .............................................................................................. 9
`1.
`Phase Modulation Encoding ....................................................... 9
`2.
`Decoding ................................................................................... 14
`Cabot .................................................................................................... 14
`B.
`Kudumakis ........................................................................................... 18
`C.
`D. A Watermark’s Attributes – Visibility, Robustness and Data
`Capacity – Were Well-Known ............................................................ 21
`The Srinivasan, Cabot and Kudumakis Combination ......................... 22
`
`E.
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`1.
`
`F.
`
`ii.
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 22
`a. Maintain Low Visibility ................................................ 22
`b.
`Improved Security and Robustness ............................... 23
`c.
`Narrowband Voice Applications ................................... 26
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .......................................... 27
`2.
`The Resulting System ............................................................... 27
`3.
`Srinivasan, Cabot and Kudumakis Render Obvious Every
`Challenged Claim ................................................................................ 29
`1.
`Embedding Claims .................................................................... 29
`a.
`Claim 1 ........................................................................... 29
`i.
`[1PRE]: “A method for embedding data in
`an audio signal, the method comprising:” ........... 29
`[1A]: “(a) dividing the audio signal into a
`plurality of time frames and, in each time
`frame, a plurality of frequency
`components;” ....................................................... 29
`[1B]: “(b) in each of at least some of the
`plurality of time frames, selecting at least
`two of the plurality of frequency
`components; and” ................................................ 32
`[1C]: “(c) altering a phase of at least one of
`the plurality of frequency components in
`accordance with the data to be embedded,
`wherein:” ............................................................. 33
`[1C-1]: “step (b) comprises selecting a
`fundamental tone and at least one overtone;” ..... 35
`[1C-2]: “and step (c) comprises quantizing a
`phase difference of the at least one overtone
`relative to the fundamental tone to embed at
`least one bit of the data to be embedded.” .......... 35
`Claim 2 ........................................................................... 36
`i.
`[2A]: “step (b) comprises selecting a
`plurality of said overtones; and” ......................... 36
`
`iii.
`
`b.
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`2.
`
`ii.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`[2B]: step (c) comprises quantizing the
`phase differences of the plurality of
`overtones selected in step (b) to embed a
`plurality of bits of the data to be embedded.” ..... 38
`Claim 3 ........................................................................... 39
`c.
`Claims 6-8 ...................................................................... 39
`d.
`Extracting Claims ...................................................................... 45
`a.
`Claim 4 ........................................................................... 45
`i.
`[4PRE]: “A method for extracting embedded
`data from an audio signal, the method
`comprising” ......................................................... 45
`[4A]: “(a) dividing the audio signal into a
`plurality of time frames and, in each time
`frame, a plurality of frequency
`components;” ....................................................... 45
`[4B]: “(b) in each of at least some of the
`plurality of time frames, selecting at least
`two of the plurality of frequency
`components;” ....................................................... 45
`[4C]: “(c) determining a phase shift which
`has been applied to at least one of the
`plurality of frequency components in
`accordance with the embedded data; and” .......... 46
`[4D]: “(d) from the phase shift determined
`in step (c), extracting the embedded data,” ......... 46
`[4E]: “wherein step (b) comprises selecting
`a fundamental tone and at least one
`overtone.” ............................................................ 46
`Claim 5 ........................................................................... 47
`b.
`Claims 9-10 .................................................................... 47
`c.
`VII. GROUND 2: SRINIVASAN, CABOT, KUDUMAKIS, AND
`HOBSON RENDER CLAIMS 2-3, 5, 7-8, AND 10 OBVIOUS ................. 50
`VIII. GROUND 3: KUDUMAKIS, TILKI AND CABOT RENDER
`CLAIMS 1-10 OBVIOUS ............................................................................. 52
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`A.
`B.
`
`C.
`
`b.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Tilki ..................................................................................................... 52
`The Kudumakis/Tilki/Cabot Combination .......................................... 57
`1.
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 57
`a.
`Tilki’s Differential Phase Encoding Was a Known
`Alternative To Kudumakis’s Notch Encoding For
`Embedding a Watermark ............................................... 57
`Kudumakis and Cabot Motivated Use of the
`Fundamental and Third Harmonic for Differential
`Phase Encoding .............................................................. 58
`i.
`Robustness ........................................................... 59
`ii.
`Low Visibility (Inaudibility) ............................... 60
`iii. Data Rate ............................................................. 61
`Expectation of Success ............................................................. 61
`2.
`Resulting System....................................................................... 62
`3.
`Embedding Claims .............................................................................. 62
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 62
`a.
`[1PRE]: “A method for embedding data in an
`audio signal …:” ............................................................ 62
`[1A]: “(a) dividing the audio signal into … time
`frames and … frequency components;” ........................ 62
`[1B]: “(b) in each of at least some of the plurality
`of time frames, selecting at least two of the
`plurality of frequency components; and” ...................... 63
`[1C]: “(c) altering a phase of at least one of the
`plurality of frequency components in accordance
`with the data to be embedded, wherein:” ...................... 63
`[1C-1]: “step (b) comprises selecting a
`fundamental tone and at least one overtone;”................ 64
`[1C-2]: “and step (c) comprises quantizing a phase
`difference of the at least one overtone relative to
`the fundamental tone to embed at least one bit of
`the data to be embedded.” .............................................. 64
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 65
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`2.
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`D.
`
`a.
`Limitation [2A] .............................................................. 65
`Limitation [2B] .............................................................. 66
`b.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 67
`3.
`Claims 6-8 ................................................................................. 67
`4.
`Extracting Claims ................................................................................ 70
`1.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 70
`a.
`[4PRE]: “A method for extracting embedded data
`from an audio signal, the method comprising:” ............ 70
`[4A]: “(a) dividing the audio signal into a plurality
`of time frames and … frequency components;” ............ 71
`[4B]: “(b) in each of at least some of the plurality
`of time frames, selecting at least two of the
`plurality of frequency components;” ............................. 72
`[4C]: “(c) determining a phase shift which has
`been applied to at least one of the plurality of
`frequency components in accordance with the
`embedded data;” ............................................................ 72
`[4D]: “(d) from the phase shift determined in step
`(c), extracting the embedded data,” ............................... 73
`[4E]: “wherein step (b) comprises selecting a
`fundamental tone and at least one overtone.” ................ 73
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 73
`2.
`Claims 9-10 ............................................................................... 74
`3.
`IX. NO BASIS EXISTS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL ............................ 76
`A.
`Section 325 .......................................................................................... 76
`B.
`Section 314(a) ...................................................................................... 77
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 77
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ............................................... 77
`CommScope, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC,
`IPR2022-00470, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2022 ) ............................................... 77
`DJI Europe BV v. Textron Innovations, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00453, Paper 10 (PTAB Aug. 3, 2022) ................................................ 77
`Kerr Mach. Co. v. SPM Flow Control, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00365, Paper 10 (PTAB July 14, 2022) ................................................ 77
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 44, 70
`Nabors Drilling Tech. USA, Inc. v. Motive Drilling Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2022-00289, Paper 12 (PTAB July 8, 2022) .................................................. 77
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 8
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) ..................................................................................................... 8
`RULES
`Federal Rules of Evidence 803(16).......................................................................... 15
`Federal Rules of Evidence 901(b)(8) ....................................................................... 15
`Federal Rules of Evidence 902(6) ............................................................................ 15
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) .......................................................................... 8
`Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings
`With Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) ....................................... 77
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA),
`Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) .............................................................. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`APPENDIX LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`Exhibit Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 7,289,961 (“’961 Patent”)
`1002
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,289,961
`1003
`Declaration of Michael Scordilis, Ph.D.
`1004
`Curriculum Vitae of Michael Scordilis, Ph.D.
`1005
`U.S. Patent No. 6,272,176 (“Srinivasan”)
`1006
`Richard C. Cabot et al., “Detection of phase shifts in harmonically
`related tones,” in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 24, no.
`7, pp. 568-571 (Sept. 1976) (“Cabot”) (from pages 8-11 of the Rachel J.
`Watters Declaration, Ex. 1009)
`PCT Publication WO 01/58063 (“Kudumakis”)
`John F. Tilki et al., “Encoding a hidden auxiliary channel onto a digital
`audio signal using psychoacoustic masking,” in Proceedings IEEE
`SOUTHEASTCON ’97. ‘Engineering the New Century,’ pp. 331-333
`(1997) (“Tilki”)
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters Relating to Exhibit 1006
`U.S. Patent No. 4,546,779
`Christine I. Podilchuk et al., “Digital Watermarking: Algorithms and
`Applications,” in IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 18, no. 4, pp.
`33-46 (July 2001) (“Podilchuk”) (from pages 6-21 of the Rachel J.
`Watters Declaration, Ex. 1034)
`Ingemar J. Cox et al., “Review of Watermarking and the Importance of
`Perceptual Modeling,” in Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 3016, pp. 92-99
`(June 1997) (“Cox-1997”)
`Mitchell D. Swanson et al., “Robust Audio Watermarking Using
`Perceptual Masking,” in Signal Processing, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 337-355
`(May 1998) (“Swanson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,845,391
`U.S. Patent No. 4,931,871
`U.S. Patent No. 3,004,104
`U.S. Patent No. 5,629,739
`U.S. Patent No. 5,745,604 (“’604 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,579,124
`Ingemar J. Cox et al., “Secure Spread Spectrum Watermarking for
`Multimedia,” in NEC Research Institute Technical Report 95-10, pp. 1-
`33 (1995) (“Cox-1995”)
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`
`Chung-Ping Wu et al., “Robust and efficient digital audio watermarking
`using audio content analysis,” in Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 3971, pp.
`382-392 (2000) (“Wu”) (from pages 16-26 of the Rachel J. Watters
`Declaration, Ex. 1053)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,151,578
`Qiang Cheng et al., “Spread Spectrum Signaling for Speech
`Watermarking,” in Proceedings of 2001 IEEE International Conference
`on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 3, pp. 1337-1340
`(2001) (from pages 12-15 of the Rachel J. Watters Declaration, Ex.
`1054)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,133,534
`Declaration of Dr. Mary K. Bolin
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson Relating to Ex. 1008
`U.S. Patent No. 6,996,521
`Jean-Claude Risset, “Exploration of Timbre by Analysis and Synthesis,”
`in The Psychology of Music, pp. 113-169 (2nd ed. 1999)
`Hideo Suzuki et al., “On the Perception of Phase Distortion,” in Journal
`of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 570-574 (1980)
`Declaration of Ziaad Khan Relating to Ex. 1008
`Stanley P. Lipshitz, “On the Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in
`Audio Systems,” in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 30,
`no. 9, pp. 580-595 (Sept. 1982)
`Wen-Nung Lie et al., “Robust and High-Quality Time-Domain Audio
`Watermarking Subject to Psychoacoustic Masking,” in 2001 IEEE
`International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, vol. 2, pp. 45-48
`(2001) (“Lie”)
`Kaliappan Gopalan et al., “Data Embedding in Audio Signals,” in 2001
`IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings, vol. 6, pp. 2713-2720 (2001)
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters Relating to Exhibit 1011
`Alessandro Piva et al., “Managing Copyright in Open Networks,” in
`IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 18-26 (2002)
`Reserved- Not Used
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0028381
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0076245
`Ingemar Cox et al., “The First 50 Years of Electronic Watermarking,” in
`EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, pp. 126-132
`(2002)
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`1043
`1044
`1045
`1046
`
`1047
`1048
`1049
`1050
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`1054
`1055
`
`1056
`1057
`
`
`
`Changsheng Xu et al., “Content-Based Digital Watermarking for
`Compressed Audio,” in RIAO2000: Content-Based Multimedia
`Information Access, vol. 1, pp. 390-402 (2000)
`Jaap Haitsma et al., “Audio Watermarking for Monitoring and Copy
`Protection,” in ACM Multimedia Workshop, pp. 119-122 (2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,633,653 (“Hobson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,298,322
`U.S. Patent No. 5,450,490 (“Jensen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,175,627 (“Petrovic”)
`Ingemar Cox et al., “Some General Methods for Tampering with
`Watermarks,” in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,
`vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 587-593 (May 1998)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,949,055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,101,602
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,737
`U.S. Patent No. 6,141,441
`Frank Hartung, “Multimedia Watermarking Techniques,” in
`Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 1079-1107 (July 1999)
`Neil Johnson, “Exploring Steganography: Seeing the Unseen,” in
`Computer, vol. 31, no. 26-34 (Feb. 1998)
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters Relating to Exhibit 1021
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters Relating to Exhibit 1023
`Ingemar J. Cox et al., “Secure Spread Spectrum Watermarking for
`Multimedia,” in IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 6, no. 12,
`pp. 1673-1687 (Dec. 1997) (“Cox-SSSW”)
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson Relating to Exhibit 1055
`Sotera Stipulation to be filed on September 23, 2022 in the U.S. District
`Court for the Central District of California
`
`
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Petitioners are the Real Parties-in-Interest. In an abundance of caution,
`
`Petitioners state that other Sony affiliates could be real parties in interest, and in
`
`particular Petitioners identify Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. and Sony
`
`DADC US Inc. as real parties in interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`A decision in this proceeding could affect or be affected by the following:
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`1.
`The application from which U.S. Patent No. 7,289,961 issued claims
`
`priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/479,438, filed June 19, 2003.
`
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`2.
`Although the following case has been dismissed, Petitioners list it in an
`
`abundance of caution: (i) MZ Audio Sciences, LLC v. Sony Group Corporation
`
`(Japan), et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-0166.
`
`U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
`3.
`(i) MZ Audio Sciences, LLC v. Sony Group Corporation (Japan), et al.,
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00866.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information - § 42.8(b)(3) and (4)
`Lead Counsel
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Counsel for Sony Petitioners
`
`- xi -
`
`

`

`Backup Counsel
`
`Service
`
`Information
`
`Thomas A. Franklin, Reg. No. 63,456
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`Charles T. Steenburg, pending admission pro hac vice
`Counsel for Sony Petitioners
`
`Babak Tehranchi, Reg. No. 55,937
`Thomas Millikan, Reg. No. 72,316
`Counsel for Verance Corporation
`
`E-mail: RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
` TFranklin-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
` MRader-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
` Charles.Steenburg@WolfGreenfield.com
` tehranchi-ptab@perkinscoie.com
` millikan-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`
`
`
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`
`Telephone: 617-646-8000
`
`Facsimile: 617-646-8646
`
`
`Powers of attorney are submitted with the Petition. Counsel for Petitioners
`
`consents to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`
`
`
`
`- xii -
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners request inter partes review (“IPR”) and cancellation of claims 1-
`
`10 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,289,961 (“’961 Patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001).
`
`The ’961 Patent embeds hidden data (e.g., a “watermark”) in an audio signal
`
`using differential phase encoding that manipulates the relative phases of certain
`
`audio signal frequency components to embed the data. The inventors wrongly
`
`believed they were the first to do so. ’961 Patent, 3:52-53; Ex. 1002, 115-125
`
`(rejecting original claims). To gain allowance, the claims were narrowed by: (1)
`
`limiting the frequency components whose relative phase is manipulated to a
`
`fundamental tone and an overtone; and (2) quantizing the phase difference to
`
`represent a data value. Ex. 1002, 71-75. Both techniques were previously known.
`
`Petitioners’ three Grounds for Unpatentability in § III below (the “Grounds”)
`
`demonstrate unpatentability of all Challenged Claims.
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioners certify that the ’961 Patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR as to the Challenged
`
`Claims. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`III. GROUNDS
`
`Ground Number and Reference(s)
`1 Srinivasan, Cabot and Kudumakis
`2 Srinivasan, Cabot, Kudumakis and Hobson
`3 Kudumakis, Tilki and Cabot
`
`’961 PATENT
`A. Background
`The ’961 Patent hides data in an audio signal (e.g., for watermarking or
`
`Basis
`Claims
`§ 103
`1-10
`2-3, 5, 7-8, 10 § 103
`1-10
`§ 103
`
`IV.
`
`steganography) using differential phase encoding. Title, Abstract, 1:20-241.
`
`Watermarking and steganography are previously known “closely related”
`
`concepts. 1:28-34, 1:42-48, 2:34-35. A “watermark” is data embedded in a media
`
`or document file that identifies “the integrity, the origin or the intended recipient
`
`of the host data file.” 1:31-34. “Steganography” embeds messages in “seemingly
`
`harmless messages … [that] will not arouse the suspicion of those wishing to
`
`intercept the embedded messages.” 1:44-48.
`
`Watermarking and steganographic techniques were evaluated based on: (1)
`
`visibility (sometimes called “audibility” or “perceptibility” so the three terms are
`
`used interchangeably herein), which is the degree of detectability of the embedded
`
`data by others beyond the intended recipient; (2) robustness, which is the degree to
`
`
`1 All citations in § IV.A-B are to the ’961 Patent.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`which the intended recipient can recover the embedded data; and (3) data capacity,
`
`which is how much data can be embedded. 1:34-44, 2:3-15, 3:61-67, FIG. 1
`
`(reproduced below); infra § VI.D. “Trade-offs among these three properties are
`
`possible and each type of watermark has its specific use.” 1:37-38. “In general,
`
`enhancement of any of the three attributes—visibility, robustness, and capacity—
`
`compromises the other two.” 2:3-15.
`
`
`
`’961 Patent FIG. 1
`
`Embodiments
`B.
`The ’961 Patent leverages the randomness of phase in music and speech
`
`signals in an encoding scheme that manipulates phases of audio signal components
`
`to embed hidden data (4:1-13) and describes “[t]wo preferred embodiments”
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`(5:19-20).
`
`
`First Embodiment
`1.
`Typical audio signals include multiple frequency components (some
`
`represented in FIG. 3 by f0, 2f0, 3f0, 4f0, and 5f0) each having a phase. Ex. 1003
`
`(“Scordilis”), ¶ 45. In the first embodiment, the audio signal is segmented into
`
`time frames (represented by vertical lines in FIG. 3, below), and in each time
`
`frame the relative phase (labelled ϕ0 and ϕ1) of two frequency components is
`
`shifted to encode data. 5:22-25. For each time frame, a new pair of frequency
`
`components and phase shift are chosen using a pseudo-random sequence known
`
`only to the sender and receiver. 5:25-36.
`
`
`
`’961 Patent FIG. 3
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`Second Embodiment
`2.
`In the second embodiment, the audio signal is segmented into time frames
`
`and a frequency spectrum is computed for each frame. 5:39-67, FIG. 4. Scordilis,
`
`¶ 47. An apparent fundamental tone (“fundamental” for short) is selected by
`
`identifying “the strongest frequency component in the spectrum.” 5:43-47. The
`
`fundamental’s “series of overtones” is also identified. Id. A harmonic series
`
`includes a fundamental (sometimes called the “first harmonic”) and a series of
`
`“overtones” which are higher frequencies that are multiples of the fundamental,
`
`e.g., twice the fundamental (second harmonic), three times the fundamental (third
`
`harmonic), etc. Scordilis, ¶ 48.
`
`Two overtones of the fundamental are “‘relative phase quantized’ according
`
`to one of two quantization scales.” 5:47-50, 6:1-18. As explained below, that
`
`means one particular phase difference between the two overtones is set to
`
`represent a binary data value of “0,” and another is set to indicate a binary “1.”
`
`5:50-51; Scordilis, ¶ 49.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`’961 Patent FIG. 4
`
`
`
`FIG. 4’s left side illustrates three audio signal time frames. 5:42-67. The
`
`frequency spectrum computed for each time frame reveals the fundamental (f0)
`
`and overtone series (2f0-5f0). 5:63-67. The phase of each frequency component
`
`(f0-5f0) in the frame is calculated. Id.
`
`The relative phases between two of the overtones in the selected time frame
`
`are then quantized. 6:1-4. The maximum possible phase difference between two
`
`frequency components is nearly 2𝜋𝜋. Scordilis, ¶ 52. “[T]wo quantization scales,
`
`as shown on the right of FIG. 4” are used to quantize the relative phases of the two
`
`overtones. 6:1-4. Setting the phase difference between the two overtones to any
`
`of the levels shown in the “1” column represents a binary “1,” whereas the phase
`
`differences shown in the “0” column represent a binary “0.” 6:2-14; Scordilis, ¶
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`52.
`
`The “1” and “0” quantization scales each has four levels (“2n levels; n=2”).
`
`Scordilis, ¶ 53. However, the number of levels “is variable.” 6:13-18. More
`
`levels allow a more granular (smaller) phase shift to encode data, which can
`
`reduce the audible effect of embedding data in the audio signal but may increase
`
`data recovery errors. Id.; Scordilis, ¶ 53.
`
`After setting the relative phases of the overtone(s) to embed the desired
`
`data, the audio signal is returned to the time domain by performing an inverse fast
`
`Fourier transform (IFFT) (6:20-22)—a well-known technique for converting a
`
`signal from a frequency domain representation to a time domain representation.
`
`Scordilis, ¶ 54.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”)
`C.
`A POSA would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a
`
`related field with coursework in signal processing, plus two years of academic
`
`and/or industry experience in signal processing or a related field. More education
`
`could substitute for experience, and vice versa.
`
`Prosecution History
`D.
`The original independent claims were rejected because the prior art taught
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`“modifying phase component to embed data.2” Ex. 1002, 85-86, 118-119, 123-
`
`124. Dependent claims 3, 12, 16, and 25 were indicated as allowable for using the
`
`fundamental and an overtone as the differential phase encoding frequencies. Ex.
`
`1002, 90-91, 123-124. Applicants made those claims independent and amended
`
`the others to depend therefrom to gain allowance. Ex. 1002, 54, 70-77.
`
`V. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`Claim terms are construed herein using the standard used in civil actions
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as understood by a POSA and the ’961 Patent’s prosecution history. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b). The Board need only construe terms to the extent necessary to
`
`resolve disputes between the parties. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad
`
`Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340,
`
`51,353 (Oct. 11, 2018) (Board need not “determine the exact outer boundary of
`
`claim scope”). No claim term requires that the Board adopt an exact outer
`
`boundary construction, because Grounds 1-3 each meets the claim terms under any
`
`reasonable interpretation as detailed below.
`
`VI. GROUND 1: SRINIVASAN, CABOT AND KUDUMAKIS RENDER
`CLAIMS 1-10 OBVIOUS
`Because the ’961 Patent issued from an application (10/870,685) filed
`
`
`2 All emphasis is added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`before March 16, 2013, pre-AIA law applies. The Leahy-Smith America Invents
`
`Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) §§ 3(n)(1)-(2).
`
`Srinivasan
`A.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,272,176 (Ex. 1005) (“Srinivasan”), filed July 16, 1998
`
`and issued Aug. 7, 2001, is prior art to the ’961 Patent at least under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a)-(b), (e).
`
`Srinivasan discloses an encoder for adding an inaudible binary code to an
`
`audio signal, and a decoder for retrieving that code. Abstract, 1:5-7.3 The code
`
`may be added and retrieved using “phase modulation” (2:66-3:19, 3:39-55, 11:17-
`
`59).
`
`Phase Modulation Encoding
`1.
`Srinivasan’s phase modulation performs differential phase encoding by
`
`quantizing a phase difference between two frequencies. 3:16-19, 11:25-30;
`
`Scordilis, ¶ 61. A code is added to an audio signal as data bits (7:67-8:3), where
`
`each bit is encoded by selecting two frequency components and setting their
`
`relative phase difference to be within a first predetermined amount to represent a
`
`binary “0” or a second predetermined amount to represent a binary “1.” 3:16-19,
`
`11:25-40; Scordilis, ¶ 61. The code is retrieved by analyzing the selected
`
`
`3 Citations in § VI.A are to Srinivasan unless otherwise noted.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`frequency components in the received audio signal and determining whether their
`
`relative phase indicates a “0” or a “1.” 3:39-55.
`
`FIG. 1 (reproduced below) is a block diagram of Srinivasan’s system. 5:53-
`
`55, 7:9-11, 1:5-9.
`
`
`
`Srinivasan FIG. 1
`
`Encoder 12 adds an ancillary code to audio signal portion 14, and
`
`transmitter 16 transmits the encoded audio signal portion with video signal portion
`
`18. 7:9-15. A site 22 for monitoring the signal from transmitter 16 includes
`
`receiver