UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. STERN, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-9 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,280,072
`
`Amazon v. Jawbone
`U.S. Patent 8,280,072
`Amazon Ex. 1002
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. STERN, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-9 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,280,072
`
`Amazon v. Jawbone
`U.S. Patent 8,280,072
`Amazon Ex. 1002
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`
`
`Experience and Qualifications---------------------------------------------- 1
` Materials Considered -------------------------------------------------------- 2
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ------------------------------------------ 4
`
`
`
`Claim Construction ---------------------------------------------------------- 4
`Anticipation ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`Obviousness ------------------------------------------------------------------ 6
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ----------------------------- 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ---------------------------------------------- 12
`
`
`
`THE ’072 PATENT ---------------------------------------------------------------- 16
`
`
`
`
`
`Summary of the ’072 Patent ----------------------------------------------- 16
`The Priority Date of the ’072 Patent -------------------------------------- 19
` CLAIMS 1-9 OF THE ’072 PATENT WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims 1-9 Are Anticipated by and/or Would Have Been
`Obvious in View of Powers ----------------------------------------------- 20
`Overview of Powers ------------------------------------------------ 20
`Claim 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 21
`1: Preamble --------------------------------------------------- 21
`1[a]: Physical Microphone Array -------------------------- 21
`1[b][1]: Virtual Microphone Array ------------------------ 23
`1[b][2]: More Physical Microphones than
`Virtual Microphones ---------------------------------------- 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1[c][1]: Generating Output Signals ------------------------ 26
`1[c][2]: Less Acoustic Noise ------------------------------- 27
`Claim 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- 28
`2: Preamble --------------------------------------------------- 28
`2[a]: First Physical Microphone --------------------------- 28
`2[b]: Second Physical Microphone ------------------------ 29
`2[c]: Third Physical Microphone -------------------------- 31
`2[d]: Virtual Microphones ---------------------------------- 32
`2[e][1]: Generating Output Signals ------------------------ 34
`2[e][2]: Less Acoustic Noise ------------------------------- 34
`Claim 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 35
`Claim 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- 36
`Claim 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- 37
`Claim 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- 38
`Claim 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- 40
`Claim 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- 41
` Claim 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- 42
`9: Preamble --------------------------------------------------- 42
`9[a]-[c]: First, Second, and Third Physical
`Microphones -------------------------------------------------- 42
`9[d]-[e]: First and Second Virtual Microphones --------- 43
`9[f]: Generating Output Signals --------------------------- 44
`Claims 1-9 Would Have Been Obvious in View of Elko -------------- 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Overview of Elko ---------------------------------------------------- 44
`Claim 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 45
`1: Preamble --------------------------------------------------- 45
`1[a]: Physical Microphone Array -------------------------- 45
`1[b][1]: Virtual Microphone Array ------------------------ 47
`1[b][2]: More Physical Microphones than
`Virtual Microphones ---------------------------------------- 49
`1[c][1]: Generating Output Signals ------------------------ 49
`1[c][2]: Less Acoustic Noise ------------------------------- 50
`Claim 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- 52
`2: Preamble --------------------------------------------------- 52
`2[a]: First Physical Microphone --------------------------- 52
`2[b]: Second Physical Microphone ------------------------ 52
`2[c]: Third Physical Microphone -------------------------- 53
`2[d]: Virtual Microphones ---------------------------------- 53
`2[e][1]: Generating Output Signals ------------------------ 54
`2[e][2]: Less Acoustic Noise ------------------------------- 55
`Claim 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 55
`Claim 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- 56
`Claim 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- 58
`Claim 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- 59
`Claim 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- 60
`Claim 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- 61
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`
`
`
`
` Claim 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- 62
`Claims 1-9 Would Have Been Obvious in View of Elko and
`G&B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66
`Claims 1-3, 6, and 9 Would Have Been Obvious in View of
`Christoph (Figure 7) -------------------------------------------------------- 67
`Overview of Christoph --------------------------------------------- 67
`Claim 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 69
`1: Preamble --------------------------------------------------- 69
`1[a]: Physical Microphone Array -------------------------- 69
`1[b][1]: Virtual Microphone Array ------------------------ 70
`1[b][2]: More Physical Microphones than
`Virtual Microphones ---------------------------------------- 71
`1[c][1]: Generating Output Signals ------------------------ 72
`1[c][2]: Less Acoustic Noise ------------------------------- 73
`Claim 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- 74
`2: Preamble --------------------------------------------------- 74
`2[a]: First Physical Microphone --------------------------- 74
`2[b]: Second Physical Microphone ------------------------ 74
`2[c]: Third Physical Microphone -------------------------- 75
`2[d]: Virtual Microphones ---------------------------------- 75
`2[e][1]: Generating Output Signals ------------------------ 77
`2[e][2]: Less Acoustic Noise ------------------------------- 78
`Claim 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 78
`Claim 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- 79
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- 80
`Claims 2-9 Would Have Been Obvious in View of Christoph
`(Figure 11) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 82
`Claim 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- 82
`2: Preamble --------------------------------------------------- 82
`2[a]-[b]: First and Second Physical
`Microphones -------------------------------------------------- 82
`2[c]: Third Physical Microphone -------------------------- 83
`2[d]: Virtual Microphones ---------------------------------- 83
`2[e][1]: Generating Output Signals ------------------------ 85
`2[e][2]: Less Acoustic Noise ------------------------------- 87
`Claim 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 87
`Claim 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- 89
`Claim 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- 90
`Claim 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- 91
`Claim 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- 92
`Claim 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- 93
`Claim 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- 94
` SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ------------------------------------------- 96
`
` CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------- 96
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`I, Richard M. Stern, Ph.D., do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Petitioner Amazon.com,
`
`Inc. (“Amazon”). I have been retained by Amazon as a technical expert in this
`
`matter.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work on this case. My compensation
`
`does not depend on the content of this Declaration or the outcome of these
`
`proceedings. I do not own any stock in Amazon and, to my knowledge, I have no
`
`financial interest in Amazon.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
` Experience and Qualifications
`
`3.
`
`I am a Professor at Carnegie Mellon University in the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering, the Department of Computer Science, and the
`
`Language Technologies Institute. I have been on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon
`
`since 1977.
`
`4.
`
`I received the S.B. degree from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (MIT) in 1970, the M.S. from the University of California, Berkeley, in
`
`1972, and the Ph.D. from MIT in 1977, all in electrical engineering.
`
`5.
`
`I am a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE), the Acoustical Society of America, and the International Speech
`
`Communication Association (ISCA). I was the ISCA 2008-2009 Distinguished
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`Lecturer, a recipient of the Allen Newell Award for Research Excellence in 1992,
`
`and I served as the General Chair of Interspeech 2006. Interspeech is the world’s
`
`largest technical conference focused on speech processing and application.
`
`6. Much of my current research is in spoken language systems, where I
`
`am particularly concerned with the development of techniques with which automatic
`
`speech recognition can be made more robust with respect to changes in environment
`
`and acoustical ambience.
`
`7.
`
`I have actively worked on the theory and application of systems using
`
`microphone arrays over a period of decades (e.g., Stern et al., 2008; Stern and
`
`Menon, 2020), and my research group has developed several array-based algorithms
`
`to improve speech recognition accuracy in difficult acoustical environments (e.g.,
`
`Seltzer et al., 2004; Stern et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2009; Moghimi and Stern, 2019).
`
`My relevant publications, including those cited above, are available on Carnegie
`
`Mellon’s web site at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/robust/www/papers.html.
`
`8.
`
`I understand a copy of my current curriculum vitae, which lists my
`
`publications for the last ten years, is being submitted as Exhibit 1014.
`
` Materials Considered
`
`9.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have considered the following
`
`materials:
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072 (“the ’072 patent”)
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`Thomas A. Powers et al., Three-Microphone Instrument Is De-
`signed to Extend Benefits of Directionality, 55 The Hearing Jour-
`nal, no. 10, Oct. 2002, at 38-45 (“Powers”)
`
`European Patent Application Publication No. EP1278395A2
`(“Elko”)
`
`Excerpts from Acoustic Signal Processing for Telecommunication
`(Steven L. Gay & Jacob Benesty eds., 2000) (“G&B”)
`
`European Patent Application Publication No. EP1538867A1
`(“Christoph”)
`
`Excerpts from the ’072 patent’s file history
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,473,701 (“Cezanne”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/139,333
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/805,987
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,207
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/400,282
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/937,603
`
`
`
`10.
`
`I have also relied on my education, training, and experience, and my
`
`knowledge of pertinent literature in the field of the ’072 patent.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
` APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`11.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether the claims of the
`
`’072 patent are anticipated and/or would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in view of the prior art.
`
`12.
`
`I am an electrical engineer by training and profession. The opinions I
`
`am expressing in this report involve the application of my training and technical
`
`knowledge and experience to the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the
`
`’072 patent.
`
`13. Although I have been involved as a technical expert in patent matters
`
`before, I am not an expert in patent law. Therefore, the attorneys from Knobbe,
`
`Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP have provided me with guidance as to the applicable
`
`patent law in this matter. The paragraphs below express my understanding of how I
`
`must apply current principles related to patent validity to my analysis.
`
` Claim Construction
`
`14.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`anticipated by or obvious in view of the prior art, the Patent Office construes the
`
`claim by giving the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning, as they would
`
`have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention in view of the intrinsic record (patent specification and file history). For
`
`the purposes of this review, and to the extent necessary, I have interpreted each claim
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`term in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning as it would have been
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in
`
`view of the intrinsic record. I have been instructed that the time of the invention is
`
`June 27, 2007, which I understand to be the date of the provisional application to
`
`which the ’072 patent claims priority was filed.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a patent and its prosecution history are considered
`
`“intrinsic evidence” and are the most important sources for interpreting claim
`
`language in a patent. I also understand that in reading the claim, I must not import
`
`limitations from the specification into the claim terms; in other words, I must not
`
`narrow the scope of the claim terms by implicitly adding disclosed limitations that
`
`have no express basis in the claims. The prosecution history of related patents and
`
`applications can also be relevant.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that sources extrinsic to a patent and its prosecution history
`
`(such as dictionary definitions and technical publications) may also be used to help
`
`interpret the claim language, but that such extrinsic sources cannot be used to
`
`contradict the unambiguous meaning of the claim language that is evident from the
`
`intrinsic evidence.
`
`17. Unless expressly stated herein, I have applied the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the claim terms, which I understand is the meaning that a person of
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have given to terms in June 2007 based on a review
`
`of the intrinsic evidence.
`
` Anticipation
`
`18.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is “anticipated” if a prior art
`
`reference describes, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of the claim, ar-
`
`ranged as in the claim. I understand that this description must be recognizable to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`19.
`
`It is my understanding that something is “inherent in,” and therefore
`
`taught by, the prior art, if it necessarily flows from the explicit disclosure of the prior
`
`art. I understand that the fact that a certain result or characteristic may be present in
`
`the prior art is not sufficient to establish inherency. However, if the result or
`
`characteristic is necessarily present based upon the explicit disclosure in the prior
`
`art, it is inherent in the prior art and is therefore disclosed.
`
` Obviousness
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is “obvious” if the claimed subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the alleged invention. I understand that an obviousness analysis involves
`
`a number of considerations. I understand that the following factors must be
`
`evaluated to determine whether a claim would have been obvious: (i) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (ii) the differences, if any, between each claim of the ’072
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`patent and the prior art; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art in June 2007; and
`
`(iv) additional considerations, if any, that indicate that the invention was obvious or
`
`not obvious. I understand that these “additional considerations” are often referred
`
`to as “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness or obviousness.
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that the frame of reference when evaluating
`
`obviousness is what a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would
`
`have known in June 2007. I understand that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill
`
`is presumed to have knowledge of all pertinent prior art references.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference may be a pertinent prior art
`
`reference (or “analogous art”) if it is in the same field of endeavor as the patent or if
`
`it is pertinent to the problem that the inventors were trying to solve. A reference is
`
`reasonably pertinent if it logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s
`
`attention in considering the problem at hand. If a reference relates to the same prob-
`
`lem as the claimed invention, that supports use of the reference as prior art in an
`
`obviousness analysis. Here, all of the references relied on in my obviousness anal-
`
`ysis below are in the same field of endeavor as the ’072 patent, e.g., microphone
`
`array signal processing and noise reduction. The references are also pertinent to a
`
`particular problem the inventor was focused on, e.g., noise suppression.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`23.
`
`It is my understanding that the law recognizes several rationales for
`
`combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness of claimed
`
`subject matter. Some of these rationales include:
`
`• combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`• a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions;
`
`• using known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`• applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with
`
`a reasonable expectation of success (in which case a claim would have
`
`been obvious to try);
`
`• known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives
`
`or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`• some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that “secondary considerations” must be considered as part
`
`of the obviousness analysis when present. I further understand that the secondary
`
`considerations may include: (1) a long-felt but unmet need in the prior art that was
`
`satisfied by the claimed invention; (2) the failure of others; (3) skepticism by experts;
`
`(4) commercial success of a product covered by the patent; (5) unexpected results
`
`achieved by the claimed invention; (6) industry praise of the claimed invention; (7)
`
`deliberate copying of the invention; and (8) teaching away by others. I also
`
`understand that evidence of the independent and nearly simultaneous “invention” of
`
`the claimed subject matter by others is a secondary consideration supporting an
`
`obviousness determination and may support a conclusion that a claimed invention
`
`was within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill as of June 2007. I am not
`
`aware of any evidence of secondary considerations that would suggest that the
`
`claims of the ’072 patent would have been nonobvious in June 2007.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that when assessing obviousness, using hindsight is
`
`impermissible; that is, what is known today or what was learned from the teachings
`
`of the patent should not be considered. The patent should not be used as a road map
`
`for selecting and combining items of prior art. Rather, obviousness must be
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`considered from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill at the time the alleged
`
`invention was made – June 2007 in this case.
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness analysis must consider the
`
`invention as a whole, as opposed to just a part or element of the invention. I under-
`
`stand this “as a whole” assessment to require showing that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same problems as the inventor and
`
`with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected the elements from
`
`the prior art and combined them in the claimed manner.
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`27.
`
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the ’072
`
`patent and evaluating whether a claim would have been anticipated and/or obvious,
`
`I must do so based on the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`relevant priority date. I understand that the earliest claimed priority date of the ’072
`
`patent is March 27, 2003. I have been instructed to assume for the purposes of my
`
`opinions that the relevant priority date of the ’072 patent is June 27, 2007. However,
`
`my opinions would not change even if the ’072 patent were entitled to a priority date
`
`in 2003.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`several factors are considered. Those factors may include: (i) the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art; (ii) prior art solutions to those problems; (iii) the rapidity with
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`which innovations are made; (iv) the sophistication of the technology; and (v) the
`
`educational level of active workers in the field. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`must have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles
`
`applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`29. Based on my review of the specification and claims of the ’072 patent,
`
`it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art 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 could
`
`substitute for formal education and additional formal education could substitute for
`
`work experience.
`
`30. My conclusions below that the claims of the ’072 patent would have
`
`been anticipated and obvious would remain the same even if the priority date, field
`
`of endeavor, or level of ordinary skill were slightly different.
`
`31.
`
`I meet the above definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`did so as of June 2007 (and as of 2003). Also, I have worked with persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art through my professional and academic experiences, and I
`
`have an understanding of their skill level around June 2007.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
` TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`32. Various methods for reducing acoustic noise in microphone signals
`
`have been known for decades. One popular method included combining the signals
`
`of multiple physical microphones to create a new, combined signal with desired
`
`properties. (See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (G&B), 181 (explaining that “differential
`
`microphones” can be effective in combatting noise and reverberation), 182 (differ-
`
`ential microphones “combine the outputs of” closely-spaced microphones in an ar-
`
`ray).) For example, it was known to use a microphone array comprising a first
`
`physical microphone placed close to the desired sound source (e.g., a person’s
`
`mouth) and a second physical microphone placed farther away. The signal from the
`
`second microphone (which may comprise mostly ambient noise) can then be
`
`subtracted from the signal from the first microphone (which may comprise mostly
`
`the desired signal) to create a new, virtual signal with reduced noise. This
`
`combination of signals from a physical microphone array to create a new, combined
`
`signal is sometimes referred to as a “virtual microphone,” “beamformer,” or “first-
`
`order differential microphone.”
`
`33. An exemplary diagram of this process is shown in G&B (2000):
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 10.21.) Because the incoming sound signal reaches each microphone at a
`
`slightly different time, the signal from the second microphone is sometimes delayed
`
`before being subtracted from the first microphone. The amount of delay is typically
`
`based on the distance between the two microphones and the desired directional
`
`sensitivity of the resulting differential microphone. (Ex. 1003 (Powers), 40, Fig.
`
`1(a); Ex. 1004 (Elko) ¶[0007], Fig. 1) This delay is often denoted as “T” or “τ”:
`
`
`1 Figures in this Declaration have been colored and annotated.
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1004 (Elko), Fig. 1.)
`
`34. The ’072 patent acknowledges that creating “virtual microphones”
`
`from physical microphone signals was “known,” conventional, and “common.” (Ex.
`
`1001 (the ’072 patent), 12:11-13.) I agree, and the prior art confirms this. G&B,
`
`which published in 2000, recognized that “[f]irst-order differential microphones,”
`
`which are virtual microphones in the context of the ’072 patent, had been “in
`
`existence now for more than 50 years.” (Ex. 1005 (G&B), 181, 184, Figs. 10.2,
`
`10.5.)
`
`35. Combining the output of first-order differential microphones to create
`
`an output signal was also widely known, and such methods were commonly referred
`
`to as using a “second-order” differential microphone. For example, G&B disclosed
`
`creating and combining virtual microphone signals. (Id., 181, 184, Figs. 10.2, 10.5.)
`
`That textbook explained that combining “the outputs of two first-order differential
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`microphones” was a “typical approach to the design of second-order differential
`
`microphones[.]” (Id., 213.)
`
`36. G&B’s Figure 10.5 provides an example of combining signals in this
`
`manner. As shown below, that figure discloses a microphone array comprising four
`
`physical microphones, which
`
`the
`
`textbook refers
`
`to as “zero-order” or
`
`“omnidirectional” microphones. (Id., 186.) The signals from the four physical
`
`microphones are combined to form three virtual microphones, which the textbook
`
`refers to as “first-order differential microphones.” The outputs of those virtual
`
`microphones are then combined again to form “second-order differential
`
`microphones.” And then the signal from the second-order differential microphones
`
`are combined to form a third-order differential microphone:
`
`(Id., Fig. 10.5.) As discussed below, Powers, Elko, and Christoph describe similar
`
`
`
`systems.
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
` THE ’072 PATENT
`Summary of the ’072 Patent
`
`
`37. The ’072 patent describes systems and methods for using microphone
`
`arrays to produce an output signal with reduced noise. (Ex. 1001 (the ’072 patent),
`
`Abstract, 1:15-18.) Much of the ’072 patent’s specification focuses on reducing
`
`noise through positioning microphones within the array and using a common vent.
`
`(See generally Ex. 1001 (the ’072 patent).) The claims, however, contain no such
`
`limitations. The ’072 patent’s claims are directed to the formation of virtual
`
`microphones by combining the output signals of two physical microphones. The
`
`patent defines “virtual microphone” to mean a microphone that is “constructed using
`
`two or more omnidirectional microphones and associated signal processing.” (Id.,
`
`3:46-49.) I have applied that definition.
`
`38. Figure 6 illustrates the claimed methods. As shown, the output signals
`
`from physical microphones (O1, O2, and O3) (highlighted in blue) are combined to
`
`create virtual microphones (M1 and M2) (highlighted in green):
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 (the ’072 patent), Fig. 6.) More specifically, virtual microphone M1 is
`
`formed by combining the output of physical microphone O1 (after applying a delay
`
`z11 and a gain A11) and the output of physical microphone O3 (after applying a delay
`
`z21 and gain A21). (Id., 11:34-48, Fig. 6.) Virtual microphone M2 is formed by
`
`combining the output of physical microphone O2 (after applying a delay z12 and a
`
`gain A12) and the output of physical microphone O3 (after applying a delay z22 and
`
`a gain A22). (Id.) The specification explains that this method of creating virtual
`
`microphones “is a common one” and “[t]here are other methods known to those
`
`skilled in the art for constructing [virtual microphones.]” (Id., 12:11-13.)
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`39. Figure 15 shows the steps of the claimed method, including the final
`
`step of combining the virtual microphone signals to generate “denoised output
`
`signals:”
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 (the ’072 patent), Fig. 15, 14:1-23.) Dependent claims recite specific
`
`combinations of physical microphone signals or the use of delays and/or subtraction
`
`when combining physical microphone signals. Each of these limitations was also
`
`well known.
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent
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
